METHODS: A case-control study was conducted among 317 caregivers of individuals with IDD (n = 168) and control (n = 149) groups, which involved the completion of the questionnaire. A closed-ended, validated self-designed questionnaire was distributed. The questionnaire included questions addressing participants' oral health knowledge and behavior. Convenience sampling was used to select the caregivers from centers associated with IDD by collecting data from nearby locations. Using SPSS® software Version 22 with a 0.05 level of significance data were analyzed. A Chi-square test and contingency-table analysis were performed on the data.

METHODS: An electronic search of literature was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in addition to a manual search in specialized journals up to May 2024. The eligibility criteria, data extraction, and evaluation of risk of bias were assessed by two independent authors. The risk of bias was evaluated in accordance with Modified CONSORT checklist items for pre-clinical in vitro studies on dental materials.

RESULTS: Out of 343 studies, thirty-seven fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Thirty studies reported a good antibacterial efficacy of Biodentine against E. faecalis. Biodentine was superior to or, at least, as efficacious as MTA, MTA Angelus, GIC, RMGIC, DiaRoot BioAggregate, NeoPutty, iRoot FS, MTA Repair HP, MTA Biorep, Well-Root PT, Activa, NeoMTA 2, Calcimol LC, TotalFill, and IRM. The findings were supported by studies with medium to high risk of bias (low quality).