Objectives To systematically review observational studies assessing the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) in children, adolescents and adults. Methods Electronic searches were performed in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS and Scopus databases for articles published up to September 2020. Two independent reviewers performed the search and critical appraisal of the studies. The inclusion criteria were observational studies that evaluated the effect of SES on the OHRQoL in all age groups using validated methods. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Data were extracted for meta‐analysis followed by a meta‐regression analysis. A random‐effects model was used to estimate the pooled calculate prevalence ratio (PR) and respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each study. Results The search strategy retrieved 6114 publications. Some 139 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. Of those, 75 were included in the general meta‐analysis they represented a total sample of 109 269 individuals. People of lower SES had worse OHRQoL (PR 1.30; 95% CI 1.26‐1.35). In the meta‐analyses of different subgroups, an association was found between low SES and worse OHRQoL in countries of all economic classifications, in all age groups and irrespective of the socioeconomic indicator used. A socioeconomic gradient in OHRQoL was also observed, in which the lower the individuals' socioeconomic position, the poorer their OHRQoL. Conclusions Individuals of low SES had poorer OHRQoL, regardless of the country's economic classification, SES indicator and age group. Public policies aiming to reduce social inequalities are necessary for better OHRQoL throughout life.

A significant association was observed between periodontitis and breast cancer.

Aim To investigate the agreement between the 2018 EFP/AAP periodontitis case classification and the 2012 CDC/AAP criteria. Materials and Methods This cross‐sectional study assessed a population‐based sample from a rural area in southern Brazil. A complete periodontal examination was performed at six sites/tooth. The periodontitis case definition was estimated and compared according to the 2018 EFP/AAP classification and the 2012 CDC/AAP criteria (reference). Diagnostic tests included sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under ROC curve (AUC). Results Five hundred and eighty‐eight subjects with ≥6 teeth each were included. Based on the 2018 EFP/AAP classification, 71.1% of the subjects were classified as stage III/IV showing 100% agreement with 2012 CDC/AAP criteria for the severe category. For the moderate and severe classification, the 2018 EFP/AAP SN was 99.8% and 100%, SP 13.6% and 43.6%, PPV 83.4% and 47.4%, and NPV 93.7% and 100%, respectively. The AUC was 0.9059 (95% CI = 0.879–0.933) and the optimal cut‐off based on the curve was stage III. Conclusions The 2018 EFP/AAP periodontitis case classification showed high agreement with the 2012 CDC/AAP criteria in a rural sample with high periodontitis occurrence.

No abstract