Search

Data sources Databases searched included Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus. Study selection Cross-sectional studies that estimated dental healthcare needs and unmet dental needs in young people, aged 10-19 years were considered for inclusion. No limitations in terms of year of publication, language, location of the study, gender and race of the participants, or the type of dental health needs and unmet needs were applied. The papers were screened on title and abstract, and then on full text by two reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion and consultation with a third reviewer. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted by three reviewers. Critical appraisal was conducted by two reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. A PRISMA flowchart was used to present the study selection results. Summary measures on the prevalence of dental health needs and unmet needs were calculated. For the meta-analysis, the inverse variance method was used to obtain pooled summary measures. Results Fifty-seven studies were included in the review. The overall prevalence of dental healthcare needs was 49% (95% CI: 42-56) across all types of dental care. The highest prevalence was that for periodontal treatment needs (71%; 95% CI: 46-96 as reported in four studies), followed by that of general treatment needs (59.0%; 95% CI: 42-75 as reported in 12 studies), orthodontic treatment (46%; 95% CI: 38-53 as reported in 32 studies) and lastly that of malocclusion treatment needs (39%; 95% CI: 28-50 as reported in nine studies). The pooled prevalence of unmet dental needs as reported in nine studies was 34% (95% CI: 27-40) with the highest prevalence found in Southeast Asia (72.3%; 95% CI: 70.1-74.5) and the lowest in Europe (11.8%; 95% CI: 3.4-20.3). Conclusions The results of this review showed that the prevalence of dental healthcare needs was higher in America and Europe while unmet needs were more prevalent in Southeast Asia and Africa. The former could partly be explained by the lower number and sample sizes of studies conducted in developing countries. Commentary [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]