Table 2.

Data abstracted from studies regarding developmental defects of enamel in People with Cystic Fibrosis

Author	DDE Status	Conclusion
Jagels&Sweeney 1976	Case 5% Control 1%	There is no significant difference in the percentage of subjects with DDE between the case and control groups.
Primosch 1980	Case 33% Control 13–15%	There was a higher incidence of DDE in the case group when compared to the control group.
Narang 2003	Case 10% (primary teeth) 41% (permanent teeth) Control 11% (primary teeth) 21% (permanent teeth)	Higher % of opacities in incisor and molar teeth in the case group compared to the control group.
Azevedo 2006	Case 39% (demarcated opacity) 15% (diffuse opacity) 3% (hypoplasia) Control 11% (demarcated opacity) 17% (diffuse opacity) 2% (hypoplasia)	Higher prevalence of demarcated and hypoplastic DDE in the case group compared to the control group.
Ferrazzano 2009	Case 55.6% Control 22%	A statistically significant higher prevalence of DDE in the case group.
Ferrazzano 2012	Case 33% (primary teeth) 56% (permanent teeth) Control 20% (primary teeth) 23% (permanent teeth)	There is a higher prevalence of DDE in the case group.
Peker 2014	Case 83.3% (mild) 16.7% (moderate) 0% (severe) Control 100% (mild) 0% (moderate) 0% (severe)	Higher prevalence of DDE in the case group.
Collard 2016	Case 15%	A similar proportion of enamel defects in the case group when compared to the national Welsh average.
Abu-Zahra 2019	Case 50% (permanent teeth) 60% (first permanent molars and Incisors)	Higher prevalence of DDE in the case group compared to national averages.
Pawlaczyk-Kamieńska 2019	Case 54.55% Control 22.73%	Higher prevalence of DDE in the case group.