Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Clinical Medicine logoLink to Journal of Clinical Medicine
. 2023 Feb 14;12(4):1507. doi: 10.3390/jcm12041507

Prevalence of Dental Caries in Patients on Renal Replacement Therapy—A Systematic Review

Deborah Kreher 1,†, Bero Luke Vincent Ernst 1,†, Dirk Ziebolz 1, Rainer Haak 1, Jonathan de Fallois 2, Thomas Ebert 2, Gerhard Schmalz 1,*
Editor: Takeyasu Maeda
PMCID: PMC9967680  PMID: 36836050

Abstract

Patients under renal replacement therapy (RRT) often show oral problems, including dry mouth, periodontal and dental diseases. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the caries burden in patients on RRT. Therefore, a systematic literature search based on the databases PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed by two independent individuals in August 2022. Search terms were: “caries” AND “dialysis”, “caries” AND “renal replacement therapy”, “caries” AND “kidney”. The systematic process was complemented by manual search. Studies on adult patients (age ≥ 18 years), treated by any form of RRT and explicitly reporting caries prevalence or incidence were checked for their eligibility and subsequently analyzed qualitatively. For all included studies, a quality appraisal was applied. From the systematic search, 653 studies were identified, of which 33 clinical investigations were included in the qualitative analysis. The majority (31 studies) of all included patients underwent hemodialysis (HD), with a sample size between 28 and 512 participants. Eleven studies investigated a healthy control group. Oral examinations were heterogeneous across studies; the caries burden was primarily assessed by decayed-(D-T), missing- and filled-teeth index (DMF-T). The number of decayed teeth ranged between 0.7 and 3.87 across studies. Only six out of these 11 studies found significant differences in caries prevalence/incidence between RRT and controls, whereby only four studies confirmed worse caries burden in RRT individuals. No information was provided on caries stadium (initial caries, advanced caries, invasive treatment need), caries activity or location (e.g., root caries) across studies. Most of the included studies were assessed to be of moderate quality. In conclusion, patients on RRT suffer from a high prevalence of dental caries. Alongside a need for further research in the field, improved, multidisciplinary, patient-centered dental care concepts are required to support dental and overall oral health in individuals on RRT.

Keywords: oral health, dental caries, renal replacement therapy, hemodialysis, kidney transplantation

1. Introduction

Dental caries is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide, and is among the most common oral diseases [1,2,3]. Caries is a dynamic process of biofilm-related, substrate-driven (carbohydrates) demineralization and subsequent decay of hard tooth tissues, including enamel and dentine [4]. Depending on exposition, dental caries, which develops primarily in elderly individuals, can affect the crown of the tooth, as well as the root surfaces; moreover, the progression of carious lesions can lead to infections in the dental pulp, apical bone and, in consequence, tooth-surrounding tissues [4].

Several risk factors for dental caries have been revealed, including carbohydrate intake, oral hygiene and local, tooth-related factors [4]. On the other hand, several systemic diseases, and their manifestations in the oral cavity, can be associated with caries development and progression [5]. Thereby, the composition as well as the quantity of saliva, which can be related to different systemic diseases, appear especially relevant [5]. In this context, xerostomia, which influences the occurrence of dental caries, is an important factor [6]. Accordingly, it appears unsurprising that dental caries is an important topic for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), especially those on renal replacement therapy (RRT), including hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) and kidney transplantation (KTx) [7]. Consequently, the recent literature has addressed this topic under different viewpoints: patients under HD were found to suffer from a high prevalence of dental caries, which worsened with increasing vintage time [8]. Furthermore, different microbiological issues regarding Lactobacillus and Streptococcus mutans, which are relevant cariogenic bacteria, have been investigated, especially under consideration of co-morbidities such as diabetes mellitus [9]. Moreover, a three-year cohort study of patients with HD showed that the all-cause mortality of the included individuals was related to their caries prevalence [10]. The latter underlines the potential relevance of oral health, especially the caries burden in individuals on RRT. One further issue, which supports the scientific interest on dental caries of patients on RRT, is the patient’s perspective, i.e., the oral health-related quality of life; thereby, oral conditions, alongside RRT-related general parameters, can potentially affect the general and oral health-related quality of life in patients on RRT [11].

Although the body of literature in this research area is growing, several questions remain unanswered, including highly clinically relevant issues such as root caries. Additionally, the variety of studies performed might result in a certain heterogeneity of results. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to evaluate the prevalence of dental caries in adult patients undergoing RRT and its comparison with healthy subjects, if available. Thereby, the characteristics and results of the available studies, their quality and a potential comparison of caries prevalence between RRT and healthy control individuals should be assessed. It has been hypothesized that patients on RRT had a high prevalence of dental caries, which is assumed to be higher than in healthy individuals.

2. Methods

The authors followed criteria established in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for this review [12].

2.1. Focused Question

In this systematic review, the PICO (patients, intervention, comparison and outcome) question was whether patients undergoing RRT would show a higher caries prevalence than healthy individuals. Therefore, patients were individuals undergoing any form of RRT, including haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis as well as transplantation. An intervention was not assessed. For comparison, either a healthy control/comparison group or available references should be used. As outcome, any form of caries assessment was defined. It was hypothesized that patients on RRT would show a higher caries prevalence than healthy individuals.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Studies which included adult patients (minimum age 18 years) requiring RRT were included in the current systematic review. It was mandatory that the occurrence of caries was explicitly described and that a full-text in English was available. Furthermore, any type of clinical study (cross-sectional, retrospective, prospective, randomized trial) was considered. Both studies with and without any form of control or comparison group (e.g., healthy controls, kidney failure without dialysis) were included in this systematic review.

Exclusion criteria were in vitro and animal designs and studies examining children and/or adolescents (age below 18) as well as an absence of explicit reporting on dental caries in the cohort.

2.3. Search Strategy

The literature search, based on the databases of PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, was performed by two independent individuals in August 2022 (date of literature search: 15th August 2022). The used search terms were: “caries” AND “dialysis”, “caries” AND “renal replacement therapy”, “caries” AND “kidney”. The systematic process was complemented by manual search. Subsequently, the studies were checked for their suitability. Studies published until 15th August were considered, without defining a lower limit regarding the year of publication.

2.4. Data Extraction

The following information was extracted from the included studies:

  • year of publication, study type, country

  • number of participants, sex, age, type of RRT, duration of treatment

  • caries, tooth loss/remaining teeth/dentures, oral hygiene parameters, glomerular filtration rate, laboratory parameters, saliva parameters, bacteria/-metabolism

  • presence of a control group, sex, age

The systematic search as well as study selection and qualitative analysis was performed by two independent reviewers.

2.5. Quality Assessment

The 11-item checklist for cross-sectional studies recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) was used to assess the quality of the studies included [13]. To determine a total score for evaluation, “No” or “Unclear” responses were assigned 0 points per question, while “Yes” responses were assigned one point. For each study, a total score of 0–3 indicated low quality, a score of 4–7 indicated medium quality, and a score of 8–11 indicated high quality. Quality scores were independently assessed by the first authors (DK, BE) and the senior author (GS). Disagreements were discussed and resolved among the authors.

3. Results

3.1. Search Findings

The search findings according to the PRISMA statement [11] are presented in Figure 1. A total of 653 studies were identified by systematic search complemented by hand search. 238 studies were excluded due to duplications and 371 articles were excluded during screening. The reasons for this were, in seven cases, the type of article (systematic review), while 364 studies were outside the scope of the review. A total of 44 full-text articles were examined regarding their eligibility. Eleven studies were excluded, wherein five studies did not investigate primary data and one study included participants with age below 18 years. Furthermore, in three studies patients did not receive RRT, in one study caries was not considered in the investigation and in one study there was no English full-text available. Accordingly, a total of 33 clinical investigations were included in the qualitative analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA diagram for systematic review process.

3.2. Characteristics of Included Studies

Studies from fourteen different countries were included. The majority (31 studies) of all included patients had undergone HD treatment, with a sample size between 28 and 512 participants across studies. Two studies additionally examined patients receiving peritoneal dialysis. The group size was 63 and 286, respectively. Five other studies examined KTx recipients. In these studies, sample sizes between 43 and 286 participants were included. Two studies only investigated patients who received KTx. The sample size amounts were 28 and 44, respectively. Eleven studies investigated a healthy group for comparison. The study type, mean age, sex and disease duration of the included studies are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Studies included in systematic review. Values for age and disease duration are presented as mean value ± standard deviation or mean value (range).

Author, Year Form of RRT Country No. of Patients Study Type Subjects Mean Age in Years Treatment Time Male (%) Control Group
HD PD Tx
Yue et al. 2018 [14] HD China 30 monocentric 48.53 ± 12.69 >12 month n/a n/a 50 30, 46.50 ± 8.83,
53% men
Schmalz et al. 2016 [15] HD, Tx Germany 126
(HD: 87; Tx: 39)		 clinical multicentre cross-sectional HD: 60.98 ± 14.01; KTx: 56.51 ± 11.56 ≥5 years n/a ≥5 years HD: 62.1; KTx: 48.7 91, 58.31 ± 9.91,
43.1% men
Gautam et al. 2014 [16] HD India 206 multicentre cross-sectional 46.79 ± 12.78 69%, <1 year,
13.6%, 1–3 years,
16.5% >3 years		 n/a n/a 81.1 n/a
Cruz et al. 2021 [17] HD, Tx Brazil 46 descriptive cross-sectional 18–44: 43.5%;
45–54: 21.7%;
55–80: 34.8%		 n/a n/a 80.4% pre Tx,
19.6% post Tx		 71.4 n/a
Ziebolz et al. 2012 [18] HD Germany 54 multicentre clinical cross-sectional 63.9 ± 13.0 4.1 ± 3.4 years n/a n/a 57 n/a
Misaki et al. 2021 [10] HD Japan 80 (13 died during 2 year follow up → 67 surviving) monocentric 67.3 ± 12.2 (surviving group: 65.8 ± 11.9) 7.6 ± 5.9 years n/a n/a 60 (surviving group: 54) n/a
Sekiguchi et al. 2012 [19] HD Brazil 94 monocentric cross sectional <3 y HD: 56%
20–39 years, 44%
40–79 years;
>3 y HD: 36.32%
20–39 years; 63.68%
40–79 years		 1.: <36 months;
2.: >37 months		 n/a n/a <3 years HD: 52;
>3 years HD: 56.8		 n/a
Cengiz et al. 2009 [8] HD Turkey 86 monocentric cross sectional 47.85 ± 14.61 n/a n/a n/a 54 41, 44.80 ± 10.22,
52% men
Bayraktar et al. 2007 [20] HD Turkey 76 multicentre cross sectional 48 ± 15 17: HD <3 years,
59: HD >3 years		 n/a n/a 47 61, 36% men,
46 ± 18
Tiwari et al. 2013 [21] HD India 30 monocentric matched case-control study 35–44: 23.3%;
45–54: 36.6%;
55–64: 40%		 n/a n/a n/a 93.3 30, 35–44: 23.3%,
45–54: 36.6%,
55–64: 40%,
93.3% men
Tadakamadla et al. 2014 [22] HD India 74 monocentric cross sectional 46.27 ± 1.42 n/a n/a n/a 64.5 150, 43.14 ± 2.31
Cunha et al. 2007 [23] HD Brazil 160 multicentre cross sectional 59 ± 12 average time:
2 years (11 months to 11 years)		 n/a n/a 56.9 n/a
Chuang et al. 2005 [24] HD Taiwan 128 monocentric cross sectional 57.5 mean duration 3.72 years (range of 0.1 to 10 years) n/a n/a 45.3 n/a
Benderli et al. 2000 [25] Tx Turkey 28 (G1: 13, G2: 5, G3: 10) monocentric cross sectional 18–54 n/a n/a G1: 0–6 months after transplantation,
6–12 months after transplantation,
>12 months after transplantation		 n/a 10
Schmalz et al. 2016 [26] HD, Tx Germany 70 (HD: 35; Tx: 35) monocentric cross-sectional HD: 56.4 ± 11.1,
Tx: 55.8 ± 10.9		 5.5 ± 6.4
(<1 year: 13.3%,
>1 to 5 years: 38.2%,
>5 years: 35.3%)		 n/a >1 to 5 years: 11.4%,
<5 years: 88.4%		 HD: 60, Tx: 47 n/a
Schmalz et al. 2018 [27] HD Germany 190 multicentre cross sectional 64.92 ± 15.7 0–2 years (n = 29),
3–5 years (n = 35),
6–8 years (n = 34),
9–12 years (n = 29),
13–20 years (n = 34),
>20 years (n = 29)		 n/a n/a 65 n/a
Akca et al. 2021 [28] HD Turkey 150 monocentric cross sectional 58.73 (14.59) 54.67 (47.73) months (at least 6 month) n/a n/a 54 n/a
Ruas et al. 2018 [29] HD Brazil 567 multicentre cross sectional 49.9 ± 13.7 <5 years: 66%,
>5 years 34%		 n/a n/a 58 n/a
Bayraktar et al. 2004 [30] HD Turkey 72 monocentric cross sectional 45.05 ± 14.15 32.56 ± 40.17 n/a n/a 53 50, 43.92 ± 18.80,
48% men
Buhlin et al. 2007 [31] HD Sweden 51 monocentric cross sectional 55.3 (13.0) n/a n/a n/a 65 n/a
Al-Wahadni et al. 2003 [32] HD Jordan 47 monocentric cross sectional 42.9 ± 12.5 1: HD <1 year,
2: HD 1–3 years,
3: HD >3 year		 n/a n/a 51.06 n/a
Pereira-Lopes et al. 2019 [33] HD, PD Portugal 63 (17 HD, 35 PD,
11 PD after HD)		 Monocentric cross sectional HD: 53.8 ± 6.8,
PD: 46.6 ± 12.3,
PD after HD: 45.3 ± 13.6		 33.5 months PD: 5.8 months,
PD after HD: 79.9		 n/a HD: 82.4,
PD: 48.6,
PD after HD: 45.5		 n/a
Bots et al. 2007 [34] HD, Tx Netherlands 43 (20 of them
Tx during study period		 monocentric prospective observation study men: 54 ± 15.7;
women: 48.9 ± 17.2 		33 ± 28.6 month at baseline n/a 13.5 ± 7.1 month before second measurement 69.3 n/a
Amaral et al. 2022 [35] HD Brazil 60 monocentric cross sectional 60.23 ± 10.87 41.9 ± 56.57 month (45 pat <48 month,
15 pat >48 month)		 n/a n/a 73.33 n/a
Naugle et al. 1998 [36] HD USA 45 multicentre cross sectional n/a 1. (N = 9) pat haemodialysis <1 y,
2. (N = 22) 1–3 y,
3. (N = 14) >3y		 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Schmalz et al. 2017 [27] HD Germany 159 multicentre clinical cross-sectional study Without DM: 66.7 ± 13,
with DM: 70.5 ± 10.2		 Without DM: 4.4 ± 4.1y;
with DM: 3.3 ± 2.7		 n/a n/a Without DM: 63,
with DM: 65		 n/a
Souza et al. 2008 [37] HD, PD, Tx Chile 286 CKD: 13 (4.5%)
predialysis, 158 (55%)
haemodialysis, 23 (8.4%)
peritoneal dialysis, 92 (32.1%) Tx		 monocentric cross sectional 42 ± 13 n/a n/a n/a 53 n/a
Menezes et al. 2019 [38] HD Brazil 107 monocentric cross-sectional 44.64 (20–87) 36 month n/a n/a 61.7 107, 43.97, 55.14%
Marinho et al. 2007 [39] HD Portugal 50 pat: 22 pharmacological-dietary treatment pat.,
28 haemodialysis pat.		 monocentric observational, case-control study 64 ± 11 n/a n/a n/a 46 64, 60 ± 11 46.9%
Misaki et al. 2019 [40] HD Japan 80 monocentric cross sectional 67.3 ± 12.2 n/a n/a n/a 60 76, 66.6 ± 12.1,
57.9% men
Pakpour et al. 2014 [41] HD Iran 512 multicentre case-controlled study 57.7 ± 17.01 52.12 ± 29.86 month n/a n/a 62.9 255, 55.8 ± 15.9,
62% men
Mizutani et al. 2020 [10] HD Japan 207 monocentric prospective observational study with 3 years follow-up 65.9 ± 12.1 64 (33, 115) month n/a n/a 65.2 n/a
Rocha et al. 2022 [42] Tx Brazil 44 monocentric cross-sectional comparative study 45.07 ± 13.87 n/a n/a >6 month 56.82 n/a
Open in a new tab

n/a: not applicable, HD: hemodialysis, Tx: kidney transplantation, PD: peritoneal dialysis, RRT: renal replacement therapy.

3.3. Oral Health Record and Findings

As shown in Table 2, the applied oral examinations were heterogeneous between the included studies. Dental caries burden was frequently assessed, whereby the decayed-, missing- and filled-teeth index (DMF-T) and its components were examined. All but three studies investigated the DMFT or DT. The number of decayed teeth ranged between 0.7 and 3.87 across studies (Table 2, Figure 2). Several studies examined further oral health parameters, including plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI), periodontitis severity or community periodontal index (CPI). None of the studies reported on caries activity, stadium/stage or localization (e.g., root caries). Table 2 provides a detailed overview of the oral health parameters examined and, if applicable, the results. Table 3 shows the comparison between RRT patients and healthy individuals in the respective studies. It is obvious that only six out of the 11 studies found significant differences in caries prevalence/incidence between RRT and controls, whereas only four studies confirmed a worse caries burden in RRT individuals (Table 3).

Table 2.

Oral health, especially cariological and selected further parameters within the included studies.

Author, Year Tooth Loss, Remaining Teeth, Dentures Caries Oral Hygiene Parameters Glomerular Filtration Rate (mL/min/1.73 m2) Laboratory Parameters Saliva Parameters (Saliva Flow Rate, pH) Bacterial-/Metabolism
CRP (mg/L) Serum Creatinine (µmol/L) Saliva Flow Rate pH
Yue et al. 2018 [14] >15 DMFT: 4.36 ± 3.92;
DT: 1.11 ± 1.62		 PI: 2.13 ± 0.45 <15 3.09 ± 5.15 1041.76 ± 216.93 n/a 8.21 ± 0.44 Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Fusobacteria, Actinobacteria; heterogeneity of supragingival plaque in CKD patients was higher than in control group
Schmalz et al. 2016 [15] >6 HD: DMFT: 20.43 ± 5.85,
DT: 2.29 ± 4.13;
KTx: 17.41 ± 5.51, 0.74 ± 1.43		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Gautam et al. 2014 [16] n/a Prevalence: 65.3% CPI (bleeding 0%,
calculus 13.1%,
pocket 4–5 mm 44.2%, pocket > 6 mm 39.32)		 <15 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Cruz et al. 2021 [17] n/a DMFT median: 20.0,
DT median: 1.0		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Ziebolz et al. 2012 [18] 12 patients (22%) of 54 were toothless DMFT (n = 54) 22.1 ± 6.5,
DT (n = 54) 0.7 ± 1.2;
DMFT (n = 42) 20.4 ± 6.4,
DT (n = 42) 0.9 ± 1.2		 PDI: median 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Misaki et al. 2021 [10] n/a DMFT: 18.5 ± 6.7,
DT: 1.7 ± 2.6		 PI and GI; median PI HD: 2.00, PI C: 1.00;
GI HD: 0.29, GI C: 0.19		 n/a 0.4 ± 1.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Sekiguchi et al. 2012 [19] >12 DMFT group L: 12.14 ± 5.36,
group M: 14.34 ± 4.80;
DT group L: 2.52 ± 2.22,
group M: 4.68 ± 2.60		 PI group L: 1.22 ± 0.56,
GI group L: 0.88 ± 0.42;
PI group M: 1.17 ± 0.55,
GI: 1.00 ± 0.41		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Cengiz et al. 2009 [8] n/a DMF-T HD: 12.7 ± 8.1;
C: 11.7 ± 5.5		 PI and GI;
PI HD: 2.1 ± 8.1; C: 1.7 ± 5.5;
GI HD: 1.9 ± 0.3, C: 1.1 ± 0.2		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Bayraktar et al. 2007 [20] n/a DMFT median HD: 12.0, C: 15.00, DT median HD: 2.00, C: 1.00 PI and GI;
median PI HD: 2.00,
PI C: 1.00; GI HD: 0.29,
GI C: 0.19		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Tiwari et al. 2013 [21] n/a DMFT HD: 6.37 ± 4.26,
C: 2.35 ± 1.28;
DT HD: 3.87 ± 4.02,
C: 1.63 ± 0.36		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Tadakamadla et al. 2014 [22] n/a DMFT stage2: 1.64 ± 1.70,
stage3: 1.51 ± 1.26,
stage4: 1.25 ± 1.58,
stage5: 1.37 ± 1.46;
DT stage2: 1.32 ± 1.25,
stage3: 1.13 ± 0.95,
stage4: 1.05 ± 1.35,
stage5: 1.05 ± 1.31		 GI: stage 2: 1.26 ± 0.13,
stage 3: 1.76 ± 0.16,
stage 4: 2.06 ± 0.43,
stage 5: 2.40 ± 0.39,
controls: 0.92 ± 0.42		 stage1: ≥90,
stage2: 60–89,
stage3: 30–59,
stage4: 15–29,
stage5: <15
(or dialysis)		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Cunha et al. 2007 [23] n/a DMFT 26.0 ± 7.7,
DT 32.9%		 CPI (bleeding/ calculus 29.4%, pocket >4 mm 8.8) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Chuang et al. 2005 [24] n/a DMFT diabetics: 19.93 ± 8.19,
DMFT non-diabetics: 14.29 ± 9.19;
DT diabetics: 2.00 ± 3.42,
DT non-diabetics: 1.94 ± 2.48		 CPI: non-diabetics:
Code 0: 1.2%,
Code 1: 1.2%,
Code 2: 24.7%,
Code 3: 45.9%,
Code 4: 23.5%
CPI: diabetics:
Code 0: 0%,
Code 1: 2.3%,
Code 2: 20.9%,
Code 3: 39.5%,
Code 4: 16.3%		 n/a n/a n/a n/a diabetics:
7.97 ± 0.67,
non-diabetics:
8.22 ± 0.44		 n/a
Benderli et al. 2000 [25] n/a Incidence: G1: 1.15,
G2: 1.4, G3: 4.3		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Schmalz et al. 2016 [26] 5 of 70 were toothless DMFT HD: 19.47 ± 5.84,
DMFT KT: 17.61 ± 5.81;
DT HD: 1.13 ± 1.68,
DT KT: 0.58 ± 1.15		 PBI: HD: 0.38 ± 0.27,
KT: 0.52 ± 0.49		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a yes: 11 different periodontal pathogenic bacteria) most prevalence: Eikanella corrodens and Parvimonas micra > Fusobacterium nucleatum > Tanerella forsythia
Schmalz et al. 2018 [27] 16.90 ± 8.8 DMFT: 20.45 ± 6.8 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Akca et al. 2021 [28] n/a DT: 1.15 ± 2.33 gum bleeding: 14.0% n/a n/a predialysis: 8.51 ± 2.75, postdialysis: 3.25 ± 1.48 dryness mouth: 81.3% n/a n/a
Ruas et al. 2018 [29] average number
19.3 ± 8.7		 Prevalence: 20.4% Gingivitis: 20.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Bayraktar et al. 2004 [30] n/a DMFT: HD: 11.91 ± 8.73,
controls 13.22 ± 9.68		 n/a n/a n/a n/a Stimulated saliva
HD: 0.69 ± 0.31,
controls: 1.64 ± 0.44		 Stimulated saliva
HD: 8.15 ± 0.72,
controls: 7.16 ± 0.75		 n/a
Buhlin et al. 2007 [31] average:
22.9 (7.3)		 DMFT: 20.1 ± 6.6 oral plaque index: 46 ± 24% estimated by creatinine clearance from 24h urine samples 3.58
(0.3–218.0)		 727 (247) n/a n/a n/a
Al-Wahadni et al. 2003 [32] n/a DMFT: 8.47 ± 2.88,
DT: 5.07 ± 1.75		 PI: 1.59 ± 0.60;
GI: 2.16 ± 0.87		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Pereira-Lopes et al. 2019 [33] n/a DMFT HD: 12.0 ± 9.0,
PD: 13.0 ± 7.0,
PD after HD: 15.0 ± 4.0;
DT HD: 3.0 ± 3.0,
PD: 3.0 ± 3.0,
PD after HD: 4.0 ± 3.		 VPI (visible plaque index):
HD: 85.0 ± 26.0,
PD: 69.0 ± 30.0,
PD after HD: 60.0 ± 38.0		 n/a n/a HD: 9.2,
PD: 7.0,
PD after HD: 9.3		 unstimulated HD: 0.3 ± 0.2, PD: 0.4 ± 0.4. PD after HD: 0.4 ± 0.4, stimulated HD: 1.0 ± 0.5, PD: 1.1 ± 1.4, PD after HD: 0.8 ± 0.5 unstimulated HD: 7.3 ±0.7, PD: 7.6 ± 0.6, PD after HD: 7.4 ± 0.5, stimulated HD: 7.8 ± 0.4, PD: 7.8 ± 0.4, PD after HD: 7.8 ± 0.5 n/a
Bots et al. 2007 [34] n/a Dia. Treatment: DIAL-base:
DMFS 39.1 (26.9),
DMFT 13.6 (8.5)
DIAL-2yr: DMFS 41.6 (27.8),
DMFT 14.4 (8.8);
TX: DIAL-base: DMFS 41.9 (26.6),
DMFT 14.9 (8.1)
TX-2yr DMFS 43.1 (25.3)
DMFT 15.5 (7.8)		 SOHI n/a n/a n/a Dia. Treatment: DIAL-base: UWS 0.31 (0.19), SWS 1.18 (0.8) DIAL-2yr: UWS 0.31 (0.18), SWS 1.09 (0.54);
TX: DIAL-base: UWS 0.3 (0.21), SWS 1.12 (0.66) TX-2yr UWS 0.44 (0.29) SWS 1.38 (0.84)		 Dia. Treatment: DIAL-base: UWS 7.28 (0.52), SWS 7.44 (0.43) DIAL-2yr: UWS 7.1 (0.71), SWS 7.28 (0.57); TX: DIAL-base: UWS 7.36 (0.49), SWS 7.39 (0.42) TX-2yr UWS 6.74 (0.4) SWS 7.0 (0.24) n/a
Amaral et al. 2022 [35] n/a DMFT: 22.55 ± 8.39
(D: 0.86 ± 1.59, M: 18.2 ± 10.99,
F: 3.49 ± 4.63)		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Naugle et al. 1998 [36] n/a subgroup: 1: 11.88 ± 8.06,
2: 13.57 ± 9.06,
3: 9.87 ± 5.53;
grand totals: 11.77
(D: 1.8 M: 4.9 F: 4.8)		 SOHI:
subgroup: 1: 3.18 ± 1.13,
2: 3.35 ± 1.42,
3: 3.17 ± 1.21;
grand totals:
3.241 ± 1.26 (N = 44)		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Schmalz et al. 2017 [27] n/a DMFT all pat: nDM: 22.3 ± 5.5;
DM: 21.9 ± 6.1;
DMFT pat with teeth:
nDM: 21.2 ± 5.4 (D: 1.4 ± 2.1
M: 12.8 ± 8.6 F: 7 ± 5);
DM: 20.4 ± 6 (D: 2.1 ± 3
M: 10.8 ± 7.8 F: 7.7 ± 5.5)		 n/a n/a n/a n/a unstimulated: nDM: 0.23 ± 0.23;
DM: 0.16 ± 0.2
stimulated: nDM:
0.5 ± 0.4;
DM: 0.42 ± 0.42		 unstimulated: nDM:
7 ± 0.9; DM: 6.7 ± 0.7		 n/a
Souza et al. 2008 [37] n/a DMFT: all pat.: 20.6;
Pre 22; HD 21; PD 24; Tx 20		 presence of Calculus: 86.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Menezes et al. 2019 [38] n/a DMFT CKD pat: 14.8 ± 8
(D: 2.9 ± 2.7, M: 11.4 ± 8.7,
F: 0.5 ± 1.5); Controls: 16.4 ± 7.7 (D: 3.2 ± 3.2, M: 11.6 ± 8.5,
F: 1.6 ± 2.5)		 Plaque index:
CKD 1.1 ± 0.6;
Controls: 1.2 ± 0.8		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Marinho et al. 2007 [39] n/a DMFT: Pat 17.14 ± 7.79
(D: 1.68 ± 1.57 M: 14.08 ± 9.12
F: 2.34 ± 2.75);
controls 15.23 ± 70.7
(D: 2.58 ± 2.48 M: 9.09 ± 7.95
F: 4.32 ± 2.49)
DMFT of pat: CRF pat 20.64 ± 6.19
(D:2.36 ± 1.27);
TRF pat 14.39 ± 7.91
(D: 1.29 ± 1.62)		 simplified Greene and Vermillion oral hygiene index: Pat 10 (26.3%)
Grade 0–1, 28 (73.7%)
G2–3 (differences between CRF and TRF!),
controls 32 (56.1%),
25 (43.9%); Ramfjord calculus index:
Pat 19 (50%) G0–1, 19 (50%) G2–3, controls 24 (42.1%), 33 (57.9%)		 <60 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Misaki et al. 2019 [40] n/a DMFT: HD pat 19 ± 6.6
(D: 1.9 ± 2.9, M: 8 ± 8.7
F: 9.1 ± 6.5); controls 17.3 ± 6.7
(D: 1.6 ± 2.2 M: 5.2 ± 7.4
F: 10.6 ± 5.5);
total number of C4 teeth:
HD pat 0.7 ± 1.5; controls 0.2 ± 0.7		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Pakpour et al. 2014 [41] n/a DMFT: HD pat 20.06 ± 11.16
(D: 0.91 ± 1.93, M: 11.71 ± 7.68
F: 7.37 ± 8.02);
controls 10.57 ± 6.74
(D: 2.51 ± 2.12 M: 6.4 ± 4.21
F: 1.43 ± 1.6)		 modified Quigley-Hein index visual plaque index:
HD pat 1.92 ± 1.28;
controls 1.18 ± 1		 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Mizutani et al. 2020 [10] 22 (16, 26) mean 19.9 ± 7.1 DT: mean D: 1.1 ± 2.0 F: 8.3 ± 5.3 DI-S: mean 0.99 ± 0.76 n/a hsCRP 0.16 (0.05, 0.45) n/a n/a n/a n/a
Rocha et al. 2022 [42] n/a DMFT: n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Open in a new tab

M-T: missing teeth, D-T: decayed teeth, F-T: filled teeth, DMF-T: decayed-, missing- and filled teeth index, PI: plaque index, GBI: Gingiva-bleeding index, GI: gingival index, CPI: community periodontal index, PPD: periodontal probing depth, UWS: unstimulated whole saliva, SWS: stimulated whole saliva, n/a: not applicable, OHI: oral health index.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Number of Decayed teeth (D-T) in the respective studies on patients with RRT presented as mean values and standard deviation. The green line reflects the German healthy general population as a national representative value [43] for interpretation of the values.

Table 3.

Results of studies which compared caries prevalence between patients on RRT and control individuals.

Author, Year Caries Disease Group Caries Healthy Control Group Significant Difference between Disease and Control
Yue et al. 2018 [14] DMFT: 4.36 ± 3.92; DT: 1.11 ± 1.62 DMFT: 2.28 ± 2.52, DT: 0.10 ± 0.31 yes
Schmalz et al. 2016 [15] HD: DMFT: 20.43 ± 5.85,
DT: 2.29 ± 4.13;
KTx: 17.41 ± 5.51, 0.74 ± 1.43 		DMFT: 16.76 ± 6.37, DT: 0.01 ± 0.10 yes
Cengiz et al. 2009 [8] DMFT: 12.7 ± 8.1 DMFT: 11.7 ± 5.5 no
Bayraktar et al. 2007 [20] DMFT median: 12.0 (9.00-18.00),
DT median HD: 2.00 (0.25-3.00)		 DMFT median: 15.00 (6.50-21.50),
DT median: 1.00 (0.00-3.00)		 no
Tiwari et al. 2013 [21] DMFT HD: 6.37 ± 4.26, DT HD: 3.87 ± 4.02 DMFT: 2.35 ± 1.28, DT: 1.63 ± 0.36 DMFT: yes, DT: no
Tadakamadla et al. 2014 [22] DMFT: 1.37 ± 1.46; DT: 1.05 ± 1.31 DMFT: 2.24 ± 1.82, DT: 2.19 ± 1.79 DMFT: no, DT: yes
Benderli et al. 2000 [25] Incidence: G1: 1.15, G2: 1.4, G3: 4.3 Incidence: 1.1 G3: yes
Bayraktar et al. 2004 [30] DMFT: HD: 11.91 ± 8.73 DMFT: 13.22 ± 9.68 no
Marinho et al. 2007 [39] DMFT: 17.14 ± 7.79 DT: 1.68 ± 1.57 DMFT: 15.23 ± 7.07, DT: 2.58 ± 2.48 no
Misaki et al. 2019 [40] DMFT: 19 ± 6.6, DT: 1.9 ± 2.9 DMFT: 17.3 ± 6.7, DT: 1.6 ± 2.2 no
Pakpour et al. 2014 [41] DMFT: 20.06 ± 11.16, DT: 0.91 ± 1.93 DMFT: 10.57 ± 6.74, DT: 2.51 ± 2.12 yes
Open in a new tab

3.4. Quality Assessment

The quality appraisal according to AHRQ criteria is presented in Table 4. Most of the included studies were assessed to be of moderate quality (Table 4).

Table 4.

Results of quality appraisal of the included studies, according to AHRQ criteria.

Item (1) Define the Source of Information (Survey, Record Review) (2) List Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Exposed and Unexposed Subjects (Cases and Controls) Or Refer to Previous Publications (3) Indicate Time Period Used for Identifying Patients (4) Indicate Whether or Not Subjects Were Consecutive If Not Population-Based (5) Indicate If Evaluators of Subjective Components of Study Were Masked to Other Aspects of the Status of the Participants (6) Describe any Assessments Undertaken for Quality Assurance Purposes (e.g., Test/Retest of Primary Outcome Measurements) (7) Explain Any Patient Exclusions from Analysis (8) Describe How Confounding Was Assessed And/or Controlled (9) If Applicable, Explain How Missing Data Were Handled in the Analysis (10) Summarize Patient Response Rates and Completeness of Data Collection (11) Clarify What Follow-Up, If Any, Was Expected and the Percentage of Patients for Which Incomplete Data or Follow-Up Was Obtained Total Score
Yue et al. 2018 [14] Yes yes no yes no yes Yes no n/a yes n/a 6
Schmalz et al. 2016 [15] Yes yes no yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 5
Gautam et al. 2014 [16] Yes yes yes yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 6
Cruz et al. 2021 [17] Yes yes yes yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 6
Ziebolz et al. 2012 [18] yes yes no yes no no n/a no n/a yes n/a 4
Misaki et al. 2021 [10] yes no yes yes no no Yes yes n/a yes yes 7
Sekiguchi et al. 2012 [19] yes yes no yes yes yes Yes no n/a yes n/a 7
Cengiz et al. 2009 [8] yes no yes yes no yes Yes no n/a yes n/a 6
Bayraktar et al. 2007 [20] yes no no yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 4
Tiwari et al. 2013 [21] yes yes no yes no yes Yes no n/a yes n/a 6
Tadakamadla et al. 2014 [22] yes yes yes yes yes no Yes no n/a yes n/a 7
Cunha et al. 2007 [23] yes yes no yes no yes Yes no n/a yes n/a 6
Chuang et al. 2005 [24] yes yes no yes no yes Yes no n/a yes n/a 6
Benderli et al. 2000 [25] yes no no no no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 3
Schmalz et al. 2016 [26] yes yes yes yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 6
Schmalz et al. 2018 [27] yes yes no yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 5
Akca et al. 2021 [28] yes yes yes yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 6
Ruas et al. 2018 [29] yes no no yes no yes Yes no n/a yes n/a 5
Bayraktar et al. 2004 [30] yes no no yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 4
Buhlin et al. 2007 [31] yes no no yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 4
Al-Wahadni et al. 2003 [32] yes no no yes no yes Yes no n/a yes n/a 5
Pereira-Lopes et al. 2019 [33] yes yes yes yes no yes Yes no n/a yes n/a 7
Bots et al. 2007 [34] yes no no yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 4
Amaral et al. 2022 [35] yes yes yes yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 6
Naugle et al. 1998 [36] yes yes no yes no yes n/a no n/a yes n/a 5
Schmalz et al. 2017 [27] yes yes no yes no yes Yes no n/a yes n/a 6
Souza et al. 2008 [37] yes no no yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 4
Menezes et al. 2019 [38] yes yes no yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 5
Marinho et al. 2007 [39] yes yes no yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 5
Misaki et al. 2019 [40] yes no yes yes no no Yes no n/a yes n/a 5
Pakpour et al. 2014 [41] yes yes yes yes no yes Yes no n/a yes n/a 7
Mizutani et al. 2020 [10] yes no yes yes no no Yes no n/a yes yes 6
Rocha et al. 2022 [42] yes yes no yes no yes Yes no n/a yes yes 7
Open in a new tab

4. Discussion

A total of 33 studies from a variety of countries and a large range of sample sizes were qualitatively analyzed in this systematic review. Only one third had a healthy control group, whereby only six revealed a significant difference between RRT and control while four studies showed the RRT group to have higher caries prevalence. To report on caries prevalence, most studies applied the DMF-T index and partly the D-T sub-aspect separately. Number of remaining teeth, salivary as well as RRT-related parameters (e.g., estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], laboratory values) were rarely reported across studies.

Against the previously formed hypothesis, i.e., a higher caries burden in RRT individuals, a strong conclusion cannot be unequivocally formulated. Only four out of the 33 studies found a significantly worse caries prevalence in the RRT group in a direct comparison with a healthy control group, while two studies showed the opposite. However, if the D-T values are listed and compared to available reference values of the healthy general population (Figure 2), a trend can be seen. Within a population-representative sample, the fifth German oral health study (DMSV) showed that adults between 44 and 65 years old (a similar age group as in the included studies) had a D-T of 0.5 [43]. As can be seen from Figure 2, all included studies showed higher D-T values, indicating a worse caries prevalence across studies. However, this interpretation is limited by differences in caries prevalence between different countries [2]. Therefore, the hypothesis is indeed confirmed, but the evidence is still limited. Dental caries was mainly evaluated by DMF-T and D-T across included studies. The DMF-T is an index for clinical studies, whereby the D-T reflects visually detectable carious cavitation on the tooth surface [44]. This is a recommendable clinical examination for research questions, but has several weak points. Early carious lesions without cavitation are not recorded; moreover, caries activity and extent are not assessed in the DMF-T index. Therefore, more comprehensive and detailed procedures which provide such information could be applied, including the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) or the International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCM) [45,46]. Future studies should accordingly consider one of those systems to obtain more detailed information on the caries burden in the patients.

Another issue is the localization of carious lesions, on which the included studies did not provide sufficient information. Especially in individuals undergoing RRT, who might suffer from dry mouth and relevant co-morbidities, the occurrence of root caries would be of certain relevance. Root caries is highly prevalent, especially in individuals with the aforementioned risk factors [47]. Because of the difficult therapy and thus inappropriate prognosis of root carious lesions, its sufficient diagnostic and preventive strategy is eminent [47,48]. Accordingly, the occurrence of root caries in patients on RRT would be of high practical interest; however, none of the included studies evaluated this issue separately, rendering it an important gap in recent evidence. Future studies on dental caries in RRT patients should therefore consider differentiation between different caries stadiums as well as their activity, alongside caries localization, focusing especially on root surfaces. Thereby, additional diagnostic procedures have never been applied to RRT individuals, including, e.g., radiographic diagnostics (bitewing), laser fluorescence or light-induced fluorescence, which have considerable value as diagnostic procedures adjunctive to visual inspection [49,50,51]. Due to differences in sensitivity between visual inspection and adjunctive diagnostics [52], the combination of different diagnostic procedures would be of interest for RRT patients. It would be of particular interest for secondary caries, i.e., carious lesions at the margin of present restorations [53]. Altogether, this discussion underlines the lack of knowledge on dental caries in patients on RRT and provides several novel approaches for future research in the field.

Although the evidence on dental caries in RRT individuals is somewhat unsatisfactory, the increased caries prevalence might be of potential importance for the outcome in those patients. The recent literature suggests some evidence for this relationship. A clinical study on 80 individuals under HD showed that a higher caries burden (DMF-T) was associated with the aortic calcification index and thus with arteriosclerosis (but not with mortality) [54]. Another prospective cohort study found untreated caries to increase all-cause mortality in HD patients [10]. A Taiwanese nationwide population-based cohort study in patients with CKD showed that sufficient root canal treatment, which is often needed in case of fairly advanced carious lesions, leads to a lower risk of death during HD therapy [55]. In the included studies, therapy-related issues (e.g., eGFR) or inflammatory laboratory values (e.g., C-reactive protein [CRP]) were rarely considered across investigations, making a conclusion on this issue impossible. However, the high caries prevalence alongside the potential risk of harm for the patients on RRT supports a demand for improved oral care in those individuals. In the context of the interrelation between oral conditions and kidney failure, several different factors appear of relevance: thereby, those patients are a special cohort with different systemic conspicuities, including increased levels of oxidative stress and inflammation [56], alongside premature ageing of the whole body and vascular system [57,58]. Those issues could be influential for the high oral burden in those individuals, and vice versa. Thereby, patients under RRT show a variety of potential confounding factors for caries development and progression; one relevant issue is the nutrition of patients on RRT, especially considering dialysis-related malnutrition and intake of carbohydrates, which can serve as a substrate for caries-related microorganisms [59,60]. Furthermore, the upper mentioned relevance of reduced salivary flow and quality, especially considering the occurrence of xerostomia, increases the risk of caries, because the reservoir for remineralization is limited [7,61]. In addition, microbiological issues, favoring relevant cariogenic bacteria (especially under consideration of co-morbidities such as diabetes mellitus), are confounding factors in patients on RRT [9]. Finally, patients on RRT are immunocompromised, showing a higher risk of infectious disease in general [62]. The affected immune response could also be a relevant factor for caries development and progression. Alongside gingival recession following periodontal burden, which is highly prevalent in individuals on RRT [63], a remarkable risk for the development of root caries can be presumed. However, the causal relationship or the oral–systemic interrelationship in patients with kidney failure or on RRT still require further research.

Especially under consideration of the patient perspective and therefore within a multidisciplinary, patient-centered approach, this issue has already been addressed previously [11]. This appears to also be relevant for another common oral health issue in RRT individuals which influences caries prevalence: hyposalivation and xerostomia. This issue has rarely been recognized within the studies included in this systematic review. It has been discussed that xerostomia in RRT individuals (especially those on HD) would be important not only for well-being but also for the general morbidity of the patients [64]. Therefore, this deserves a multidisciplinary approach involving nephrologists as well as dentists. Accordingly, a main conclusion of the results from this systematic review is the need for improved, multidisciplinary, patient-centered dental care concepts to improve the dental conditions (and overall oral health) of RRT patients.

This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and had a clear PICO question. The whole systematic search was performed by independent reviewers; furthermore, the research question is of high clinical relevance. However, several limitations need to be addressed for the review itself and the included studies. On the one hand, a variety of heterogeneous studies was included, which were performed in different patients and countries, under application of different, quite general visual caries assessments. This limits the generalizability of the data and is the reason for not performing a quantitative (meta-) analysis, making this current study only a qualitative synthesis. Additionally, studies both with and without a healthy control group were included; the question of whether RRT individuals suffer from higher caries prevalence can only be unequivocally answered in case of a control group. However, many studies addressed the topic without a control group and showed high caries prevalence when compared to available reference values for interpretation (see Figure 2). Furthermore, the included studies were mainly of moderate quality (see quality appraisal). Additionally, many studies investigated patients under HD, while PD and KTx are still rarely examined. Alongside the lack of differentiated caries diagnostics and consideration of additional RRT-related parameters, the available evidence must be seen as limited, requiring further well-performed clinical studies in the field.

5. Conclusions

Within the limitations of the systematic review, patients on RRT show a high prevalence of dental caries. Thereby, no information regarding caries stadium, activity and localization is available yet. As observational data suggest a link between oral health and mortality in patients on RRT, improved, multidisciplinary, patient-centered dental care concepts are required to support dental and overall oral health in individuals on RRT, along with a need for further research in the field.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge support from Leipzig University for Open Access Publishing.

Abbreviations

CKD Chronic kidney disease
CPI community periodontal index
CRP C-reactive protein
D-T number of decayed teeth
DMF-T decayed-, missing- and filled teeth index
eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate
F-T number of filled teeth
GI gingival index
HD hemodialysis
KTx kidney transplantation
M-T number of missing teeth
PI plaque index
RRT renal replacement therapy
Open in a new tab

Author Contributions

D.K. and B.L.V.E. performed the data curation and analysis and wrote the manuscript. T.E., J.d.F., R.H. and D.Z. participated in data interpretation and revised the manuscript. G.S. was head of the study, participated in data curation, analysis and interpretation and revised the manuscript. All authors gave their final approval for the manuscript in its current version. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

References

  • 1.Kassebaum N.J., Bernabe E., Dahiya M., Bhandari B., Murray C.J.L., Marcenes W. Global Burden of Untreated Caries: A Systematic Review and Metaregression. J. Dent. Res. 2015;94:650–658. doi: 10.1177/0022034515573272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Peres M.A., Macpherson L.M., Weyant R.J., Daly B., Venturelli R., Mathur M.R., Listl S., Celeste R.K., Guarnizo-Herreño C.C., Kearns C., et al. Oral diseases: A global public health challenge. Lancet. 2019;394:249–260. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31146-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wen P., Chen M., Zhong Y., Dong Q., Wong H. Global Burden and Inequality of Dental Caries, 1990 to 2019. J. Dent. Res. 2022;101:392–399. doi: 10.1177/00220345211056247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pitts N.B., Zero D.T., Marsh P.D., Ekstrand K., Weintraub J.A., Ramos-Gomez F., Tagami J., Twetman S., Tsakos G., Ismail A. Dental caries. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers. 2017;3:17030. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2017.30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sabharwal A., Stellrecht E., Scannapieco F.A. Associations between dental caries and systemic diseases: A scoping review. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21:472. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01803-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cassolato S.F., Turnbull R.S. Xerostomia: Clinical Aspects and Treatment. Gerodontology. 2003;20:64–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2003.00064.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bossola M. Xerostomia in patients on chronic hemodialysis: An update. Semin. Dial. 2019;32:467–474. doi: 10.1111/sdi.12821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cengiz M., Sümer P., Cengiz S., Yavuz U. The effect of the duration of the dialysis in hemodialysis patients on dental and periodontal findings. Oral Dis. 2009;15:336–341. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2009.01530.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rezazadeh F., Bazargani A., Roozbeh-Shahroodi J., Pooladi A., Arasteh P., Zamani K. Comparison of oral Lactobacillus and Streptococcus mutans between diabetic dialysis patients with non-diabetic dialysis patients and healthy people. J. Ren. Inj. Prev. 2016;5:148–152. doi: 10.15171/jrip.2016.31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mizutani K., Mikami R., Gohda T., Gotoh H., Aoyama N., Matsuura T., Kido D., Takeda K., Izumi Y., Sasaki Y., et al. Poor oral hygiene and dental caries predict high mortality rate in hemodialysis: A 3-year cohort study. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:21872. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78724-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Schmalz G., Patschan S., Patschan D., Ziebolz D. Oral health-related quality of life in adult patients with end-stage kidney diseases undergoing renal replacement therapy—A systematic review. BMC Nephrol. 2020;21:154. doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-01824-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G., The PRISMA Group Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rostom A., Dube C., Cranney A. Celiac Disease. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); Rockville, MD, USA: 2004. [(accessed on 29 January 2020)]. Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 104. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK35156/ [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yue Q., Yin F.-T., Zhang Q., Yuan C., Ye M.-Y., Wang X.-L., Li J.-J., Gan Y.-H. Carious status and supragingival plaque microbiota in hemodialysis patients. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0204674. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Schmalz G., Kollmar O., Vasko R., Müller G., Haak R., Ziebolz D. Oral health-related quality of life in patients on chronic haemodialysis and after kidney transplantation. Oral Dis. 2016;22:665–672. doi: 10.1111/odi.12519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gautam N.R., Koganti R., Rao T.H., Agarwal R., Alamanda M. Effect of end-stage renal disease on oral health in patients undergoing renal dialysis: A cross-sectional study. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2014;4:164–169. doi: 10.4103/2231-0762.142006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.da Cruz A.J.S., de Castilho L.S., Contarini L.C.S., Silva M.E.D.S.E., Abreu M.H.N.G. Dental Findings of Kidney and Liver Transplantation Patients from a Brazilian Oral Health Care Service. Pesqui. Bras. Em Odontopediatria E Clínica Integr. 2021;21 doi: 10.1590/pboci.2021.042. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ziebolz D., Fischer P., Hornecker E., Mausberg R.F. Oral health of hemodialysis patients: A cross-sectional study at two German dialysis centers. Hemodial. Int. 2012;16:69–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-4758.2011.00606.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sekiguchi R.T., Pannuti C.M., Silva H.T., Jr., Medina-Pestana J.O., Romito G.A. Decrease in oral health may be associated with length of time since beginning dialysis. Spec. Care Dent. 2012;32:6–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-4505.2011.00223.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bayraktar G., Kurtulus I., Duraduryan A., Cintan S., Kazancıoğlu R.T., Yildiz A., Bural C., Bozfakioglu S., Besler M., Trablus S., et al. Dental and periodontal findings in hemodialysis patients. Oral Dis. 2007;13:393–397. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2006.01297.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tiwari V., Saxena V., Bhambhal A., Tiwari U., Singh A., Goud S. The oral health status of patients with renal disease in central india: A preliminary study. J. Ren. Care. 2013;39:208–213. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-6686.2013.12040.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tadakamadla J., Kumar S., Mamatha G.P. Comparative evaluation of oral health status of chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients in various stages and healthy controls. Spec. Care Dent. 2014;34:122–126. doi: 10.1111/scd.12040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cunha F.L., Tagliaferro E.P.S., Pereira A.C., Meneghim M.C., Hebling E. Oral health of a Brazilian population on renal dialysis. Spec. Care Dent. 2007;27:227–231. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-4505.2007.tb01754.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chuang S.-F., Sung J.-M., Kuo S.-C., Huang J.-J., Lee S.-Y. Oral and dental manifestations in diabetic and nondiabetic uremic patients receiving hemodialysis. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontology. 2005;99:689–695. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.06.078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Benderli Y., Erdilek D., Koray F., Telci A., Turan N. The relation between salivary IgA and caries in renal transplant patients. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontology. 2000;89:588–593. doi: 10.1067/moe.2000.105144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Schmalz G., Kauffels A., Kollmar O., Slotta J.E., Vasko R., Müller G.A., Haak R., Ziebolz D. Oral behavior, dental, periodontal and microbiological findings in patients undergoing hemodialysis and after kidney transplantation. BMC Oral Health. 2016;16:72. doi: 10.1186/s12903-016-0274-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Schmalz G., Dietl M., Vasko R., Muller G., Rothermund L., Keller F., Ziebolz D., Rasche F. Dialysis vintage time has the strongest correlation to psychosocial pattern of oral health-related quality of life—A multicentre cross-sectional study. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Y Cirugía Bucal. 2018;23:e698–e706. doi: 10.4317/medoral.22624. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Akça N.K., Arslan D.E., In H. Examination of factors affecting oral health in patients receiving haemodialysis. J. Ren. Care. 2021;48:262–271. doi: 10.1111/jorc.12396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ruas B.M., Castilho L.S., Carneiro N.C.R., Cardoso N.M.D.M., Reis A.B., e Silva M.E.S., Borges-Oliveira A.C. Integrality of care for hemodialysis patient in Brazil: An analysis of access to dental care. Ciência Saúde Coletiva. 2020;25:533–540. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232020252.06362018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bayraktar G., Kazancıoğlu R.T., Bozfakioglu S., Yildiz A., Ark E. Evaluation of salivary parameters and dental status in adult hemodialysis patients. Clin. Nephrol. 2004;62:380–383. doi: 10.5414/CNP62380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Buhlin K., Bárány P., Heimbürger O., Stenvinkel P., Gustafsson A. Oral health and pro-inflammatory status in end-stage renal disease patients. Oral Health Prev. Dent. 2007;5:235–244. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Al-Wahadni A., Al-Omari M.A. Dental diseases in a Jordanian population on renal dialysis. Quintessence Int. 2003;34:343–347. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pereira-Lopes O., Simões-Silva L., Araujo R., Correia-Sousa J., Braga A.C., Soares-Silva I., Sampaio-Maia B. Influence of dialysis therapies on oral health: A pilot study. Quintessence Int. 2019;50:216–223. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a41920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bots C.P., Brand H.S., Poorterman J.H.G., Van Amerongen B.M., Valentijn-Benz M., Veerman E.C.I., Ter Wee P.M., Amerongen A.V.N. Oral and salivary changes in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD): A two year follow-up study. Br. Dent. J. 2007;202:E7. doi: 10.1038/bdj.2007.47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Amaral M.A., Miotto A.M.M., Moimaz S.A.S., Garbin C.A.S. Self-perception of oral health among tertiary-care users: Quanti-qualitative analysis with chronic kidney disease patients. Acta Sci. Health Sci. 2022;44:e53802. doi: 10.4025/actascihealthsci.v44i1.53802. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Naugle K., Darby M.L., Bauman D.B., Lineberger L.T., Powers R. The Oral Health Status of Individuals on Renal Dialysis. Ann. Periodontol. 1998;3:197–205. doi: 10.1902/annals.1998.3.1.197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Souza C.M., Braosi A.P.R., Luczyszyn S.M., Casagrande R.W., Pecoits-Filho R., Riella M.C., Ignácio S.A., Trevilatto P.C. Oral health in Brazilian patients with chronic renal disease. Rev. Med. Chil. 2008;136:741–746. doi: 10.4067/S0034-98872008000600008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Menezes C., Pereira A., Ribeiro C., Chaves C., Guerra R., Thomaz É.B., Monteiro-Neto V., Alves C. Is there association between chronic kidney disease and dental caries? A case-controlled study. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 2019;24:e211–e216. doi: 10.4317/medoral.22737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sobrado Marinho J.S., Tomás Carmona I., Loureiro A., Limeres Posse J., García Caballero L., Diz Dios P. Oral health status in patients with moderate-severe and terminal renal failure. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 2007;12:E305–E310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Misaki T., Fukunaga A., Shimizu Y., Ishikawa A., Nakano K. Possible link between dental diseases and arteriosclerosis in patients on hemodialysis. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0225038. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Pakpour A.H., Kumar S., Fridlund B., Zimmer S. A case-control study on oral health-related quality of life in kidney disease patients undergoing haemodialysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2015;19:1235–1243. doi: 10.1007/s00784-014-1355-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Rocha L.C.B., Nunes-Dos-Santos D.L., Costa E.M., Gomes S.V., Rodrigues V.P., Pereira A.L.A. A Cross-Sectional Study of the Association Between Chronic Oral Disease Burden and Serum Biomarkers in Kidney Transplant Recipients. Prog. Transplant. 2021;32:49–54. doi: 10.1177/15269248211064889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Jordan R.A., Micheelis W. The Fifth German Oral Health Study (DMS V). Institut der Deutschen Zahnärzte (Hrsg.) Deutscher Zahnärzte Verlag DÄV; Köln, Germany: 2016. (IDZ Materialienreihe Band 35) (In German) [Google Scholar]
  • 44.WHO . World Health Organization: Oral Health Surveys, Basic Methods. 4th ed. WHO Oral Health Unit; Geneva, Switzerland: 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ismail A.I., Pitts N.B., Tellez M., Authors of the International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS) The International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS™) An Example of a Caries Management Pathway. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15(Suppl. 1):S9. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-15-S1-S9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ekstrand K.R., Gimenez T., Ferreira F.R., Mendes F.M., Braga M.M. The International Caries Detection and Assessment System—ICDAS: A Systematic Review. Caries Res. 2018;52:406–419. doi: 10.1159/000486429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.AlQranei M.S., Balhaddad A.A., Melo M.A. The burden of root caries: Updated perspectives and advances on management strategies. Gerodontology. 2021;38:136–153. doi: 10.1111/ger.12511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Meyer-Lueckel H., Machiulskiene V., Giacaman R.A. How to Intervene in the Root Caries Process? Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. Caries Res. 2019;53:599–608. doi: 10.1159/000501588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kreher D., Park K.-J., Schmalz G., Schulz-Kornas E., Haak R., Ziebolz D. Evaluation of quantitative light-induced fluorescence to assess lesion depth in cavitated and non-cavitated root caries lesions—An in vitro study. Photodiagnosis Photodyn. Ther. 2022;37:102675. doi: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2021.102675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Litzenburger F., Schäfer G., Hickel R., Kühnisch J., Heck K. Comparison of novel and established caries diagnostic methods: A clinical study on occlusal surfaces. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21:97. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01465-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Schwendicke F., Tzschoppe M., Paris S. Radiographic caries detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2015;43:924–933. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Janjic Rankovic M., Kapor S., Khazaei Y., Crispin A., Schüler I., Krause F., Ekstrand K., Michou S., Eggmann F., Lussi A., et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021;25:6069–6079. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04113-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Brouwer F., Askar H., Paris S., Schwendicke F. Detecting Secondary Caries Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Dent. Res. 2015;95:143–151. doi: 10.1177/0022034515611041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Misaki T., Fukunaga A., Nakano K. Dental caries status is associated with arteriosclerosis in patients on hemodialysis. Clin. Exp. Nephrol. 2020;25:87–93. doi: 10.1007/s10157-020-01966-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Chiu C.-C., Chang Y.-C., Huang R.-Y., Chan J.-S., Chung C.-H., Chien W.-C., Kao Y.-H., Hsiao P.-J. Investigation of the Impact of Endodontic Therapy on Survival among Dialysis Patients in Taiwan: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021;18:326. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18010326. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ebert T., Neytchev O., Witasp A., Kublickiene K., Stenvinkel P., Shiels P.G. Inflammation and Oxidative Stress in Chronic Kidney Disease and Dialysis Patients. Antioxidants Redox Signal. 2021;35:1426–1448. doi: 10.1089/ars.2020.8184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ebert T., Pawelzik S.-C., Witasp A., Arefin S., Hobson S., Kublickiene K., Shiels P.G., Bäck M., Stenvinkel P. Inflammation and Premature Ageing in Chronic Kidney Disease. Toxins. 2020;12:227. doi: 10.3390/toxins12040227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ebert T., Tran N., Schurgers L., Stenvinkel P., Shiels P.G. Ageing—Oxidative stress, PTMs and disease. Mol. Asp. Med. 2022;86:101099. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2022.101099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Piccoli G.B., Lippi F., Fois A., Gendrot L., Nielsen L., Vigreux J., Chatrenet A., D’Alessandro C., Cabiddu G., Cupisti A. Intradialytic Nutrition and Hemodialysis Prescriptions: A Personalized Stepwise Approach. Nutrients. 2020;12:785. doi: 10.3390/nu12030785. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ostermann M., Lumlertgul N., Mehta R. Nutritional assessment and support during continuous renal replacement therapy. Semin. Dial. 2021;34:449–456. doi: 10.1111/sdi.12973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Bossola M., Tazza L. Xerostomia in patients on chronic hemodialysis. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 2012;8:176–182. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2011.218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Syed-Ahmed M., Narayanan M. Immune Dysfunction and Risk of Infection in Chronic Kidney Disease. Adv. Chronic Kidney Dis. 2019;26:8–15. doi: 10.1053/j.ackd.2019.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Schmalz G., Schiffers N., Schwabe S., Vasko R., Müller G.A., Haak R., Mausberg R.F., Ziebolz D. Dental and periodontal health, and microbiological and salivary conditions in patients with or without diabetes undergoing haemodialysis. Int. Dent. J. 2017;67:186–193. doi: 10.1111/idj.12282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Wilczynska-Borawska M., Baginska J., Borawski J. Is xerostomia a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in maintenance hemodialysis patients? Med. Hypotheses. 2012;79:544–548. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2012.07.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Articles from Journal of Clinical Medicine are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES