Table 2 Data extracted from the included studies

Shaw et al, 1980 [22], UK

Cross-sectional

531

9–13

Nicknames, teasing, harassment/ verbal and physical

Interview questionnaire

Questionnaire about nicknames, teasing, harassment and physical characteristics

Not specified

Descriptive analysis and Chi-square

Not reported

66% were teased about their physical characteristics. 7% of total sample were teased about their teeth, of which 51% due to incisal prominence, 8% due to crowding. Children teased about teeth were twice likely to suffer harassment (55%) than those were not (26%) (p < 0.001)

Malocclusion was significantly related with bullying.

Helm et al, 1985 [23], Denmark

Cohort

758

First phase 13–19

Second phase

28–34

Teasing/verbal

Fifth question of an own questionnaire: “Did your schoolmates tease you about the appearance of your teeth or jaws?”

Instrument used previously by Bjork et al. 1964

Max Ovj > 6 mm, Max Ovj > 9 mm, Mand Ovj, DB > 5 mm, DB > 7 mm, AOB, CrsB, Scissor bite, Crw Max inc, Crw Mand inc, Spacing Max inc.

Chi-square and Fisher exacts test

80% (n = 606) presented malocclusion

9% of adults with malocclusion suffered teasing during adolescence, and 1.3% of adults without malocclusion suffered teasing during adolescence (p < 0.001).

Extreme maxillary overjet, extreme deep bite, and space anomaly malocclusions were significantly related with teasing.

Rwakatema et al, 2006 [24], Tanzania

Cross-sectional

298

12–15

Teased and bullying/ verbal

Ng’ang’a et al. questionnaire. Question: “Do your schoolmates tease you about the appearance of your teeth or jaws?”

Ng’ang’a et al. questionnaire. Question: “Do you generally observe that your teeth are not appropriately aligned in your mouth?”

Self-reported: teeth alignment

Chi-square

56% respondents thought their teeth were properly aligned and 69% (n = 205) related that they need orthodontic treatment.

Bullying or teasing was not significantly related to teeth alignment (p = 0.093, 0 > 0.05)

Malocclusion was not significantly related with teasing or bullying.

Badran et al., 2010 [21], Jordan

Cross-sectional

400

14–16

Teasing/ verbal

Global negative self-evaluation (GSE) scale

IOTN (AC and DHC), self-perceived AC, perceived need for orthodontic treatment

Not specified

Spearman correlation coefficient

82% (n = 338) presented little, borderline, or definite need for orthodontic treatment.

Teasing about teeth was correlated with GSE scale (0.272), with students’ high AC score (0.213) and with perceived treatment need (0.354).

Malocclusion was significantly related with teasing.

Seehra et al., 2011, [16] UK

Cross-sectional

336

10–14

Bullying/verbal and physical

Olweus Bully/Victim questionnaire

IOTN (AC and DHC)

Incisor relationship, DHC and AC component of IOTN, skeletal pattern, FMPA, LFH, increased Ovj and over bite

Chi-square and Fisher exacts test

96% (n = 324) presented little, borderline, or definite need for orthodontic treatment.

Bullying was significantly related to Class II division 1 incisor relationship (p = 0.041), increased overbite (p = 0.023), and increased overjet (> 4 mm)(p = 0.001) and high need for OT by AC component of IOTN (p = 0.0014)

Malocclusion was significantly related with bullying, principally to the AC component of IOTN.

Al-Bitar et al., 2013 [15], Jordan

Cross-sectional

920

11–12

Bullying/verbal

Self-questionnaire with component for personal experience of bullying

Self-questionnaire with component for general physical characteristics and dentofacial features

Self-reported: AOB; spacing between teeth or missing teeth; Crw of teeth; gummy smile; prominent anterior teeth; prominent Mand anterior teeth; retrognathic Mand; incompetent lip coverage; prognathic Mand.

Descriptive statements with total frequency

Not reported

73% of adolescents reported they were victims of bullying due to dentofacial features. Teeth (50%), lips (14%), and chin (9%). Space between teeth or missing teeth was the most targeted feature.

Malocclusion was related with bullying.

Agel et al., 2014, [17], East UK

Cross-sectional

728

15–16

Bullying/verbal and physical

Six items derived from the revised Olweus Bully/Victim questionnaire

WHO oral clinical exam methodology

Ovj and lip coverage

Chi-square

1.51% of the adolescents presented Ovj > 6 mm and 0.41% presented inadequate lip coverage.

Bullying was not significantly related to Ovj > 6 mm or inadequate lip coverage (p > 0.05).

Malocclusion addressed by increased overjet was not significantly related with bullying.

Chikaod et al., 2017 [25], Nigeria

Cross-sectional

835

12–17

Bullying/verbal

Self-administered questionnaire modified from Al-Bitar 2013.

Self-administered questionnaire modified from Al-Bitar 2013.

Self-reported: space incisor, prominent Ovj, incompetent lip coverage, gummy smile, diastema or missing teeth, AOB, prognathic Mand, retrognatic Mand, prominent Mand anterior teeth, Crw.

Descriptive statements with total frequency

Not reported

51.9% of adolescents reported they were victims of bullying due to dentofacial features. Teeth (24.3%), chin (15.3%), and lips (12.3%). Space between teeth or missing teeth (12.2%) was the most common dentofacial feature identified as target for bullying.

Bullies frequently target to general dentofacial appearance (malocclusion).

Julca-Ching et al. 2019 [26], Peru

Cross-sectional

147

12–18

Bullying/verbal

Self-administered questionnaire modified from Al-Bitar 2013.

DAI

Not specified

Kruskal-Wallis

87.76% of adolescents presented malocclusion

Bullying was not significantly related to malocclusion (p > 0.05).

Malocclusion was not significantly related with bullying.