· Journal of dental research 2020 · global epidemiological modeling study · n=?

Global, Regional, and National Levels and Trends in Burden of Oral Conditions from 1990 to 2017: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease 2017 Study.

Cited 1547 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Systematic epidemiological modeling of global surveillance and survey data (by design analogy, not clinical CEBM).

PubMed 32122215 · doi:10.1177/0022034520908533 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

As part of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 Study, researchers analyzed the descriptive epidemiology of common oral conditions from 1990 to 2017. They estimated global, regional, and national prevalence, incidence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) by age, sex, and country, assessing patterns across World Bank economy classifications and the Socio-demographic Index (SDI).

What was found

In 2017, oral conditions affected an estimated 3.5 billion people globally (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 3.2 to 3.7 billion). Specific conditions included: - Untreated caries in permanent teeth: 2.3 billion cases (95% UI, 2.1 to 2.5 billion) - Severe periodontitis: 796 million cases (95% UI, 671 to 930 million) - Untreated caries in deciduous teeth: 532 million cases (95% UI, 443 to 622 million) - Total tooth loss: 267 million cases (95% UI, 235 to 300 million) - Other oral conditions: 139 million cases (95% UI, 133 to 146 million) More economically developed countries had the lowest burden of untreated caries and severe periodontitis, but the highest burden of total tooth loss.

Why it matters

These estimates demonstrate that oral conditions remain among the most widespread health conditions globally, providing essential epidemiological baselines for health policy planning and universal dental coverage strategies.

Limits

The estimates rely on statistical modeling and imputation where primary country-level oral health surveillance was sparse or absent. Specific input data sources, study sample sizes, and detailed temporal changes between 1990 and 2017 were not detailed in the abstract.

Cited by