Developmental defects of enamel in childhood cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
A Allam
Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan
N Camoni
Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy - Asst Valle Olona, Dental Unit, Gallarate (Va)
S Cirio
Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan
C Salerno
Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy - Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Bern, Switzerland - Graduate School for Health Sciences, University of Bern
G Campus
Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Bern, Switzerland - Department of Cariology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, SIMATS, Chennai, India. - Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome
MG Cagetti
Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan
childhood cancer survivors, developmental defects of enamel, antineoplastic therapy, meta-analysis
Abstract
AIM: The present systematic review and meta-analysis (Prospero registration number: CRD42023472016) aims to assess the prevalence of developmental defects of enamel (DDEs), qualitatively and/or quantitatively, in childhood cancer survivors (CCS) and evaluate, when possible, these data in comparison with those found in healthy children.
METHODS: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus) were searched from January 2003 to January 2024 for studies reporting on DDEs in children with a mean age not exceeding 16 years at the time of the study who underwent antineoplastic therapy. The ROBINS-I and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools were used to assess the risk of bias. Included studies with comparable outcomes underwent random effects models meta-analysis using Stata®18.
CONCLUSION: CCS showed a higher prevalence of DDEs, both qualitative and quantitative, compared to healthy children. The meta- analysis showed higher odds of developing qualitative defects over quantitative defects in CCS. Conclusions regarding the association between the type of therapy administered, age of therapy initiation, and prevalence of DDEs could not be drawn due to insufficient data. A lack of a standardized method of detecting enamel defects posed a challenge in the qualitative and quantitative analysis.
