Systematic review reports high dental caries prevalence in Indian tribal communities, suggesting urgent health actions.
A bstract Aim: Tribal populations in India face significant oral health disparities due to geographic and socioeconomic isolation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide a comprehensive estimate of dental caries prevalence and severity (decayed, missing, and filled teeth [DMFT]) among Indian tribal communities. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Scopus) were searched for studies published between January 2000 and March 2024 reporting the incidence of dental caries in Indian tribes. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Pooled prevalence and mean DMFT scores were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated via Egger’s test (PROSPERO: CRD42024538174). Results: Twenty studies were included in the systematic review ( N = 10,059). The overall pooled prevalence of dental caries was 44.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27.9%–61.4%), with extremely high heterogeneity ( I 2 = 99.77%). The prevalence was similar across adults (45.6%) and children (46.6%). The overall pooled DMFT index was 2.98 (95% CI: 2.61–3.35). Univariate meta-regression showed no significant association between prevalence and study year, location, or sample size ( P > 0.05). Significant publication bias was detected (Egger’s test, P = 0.001). Conclusion: Nearly half of the Indian tribal population is affected by dental caries, with severity comparable to that of other global Indigenous groups. However, the extreme heterogeneity and evidence of publication bias necessitate cautious interpretation. Integration of oral health into primary healthcare via the National Oral Health Programmer and Ayushman Bharat is recommended to address these disparities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarmah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: