Administrative Claims Databases in Dentistry: Current Applications, Methodological Trends, and Evidence Gaps: A Global Scoping Review of Dataset Characteristics
Misuzu Sato, Sachiko Ono, Miho Ishimaru, Yusuke IdaObjectives
Administrative claims databases are increasingly used in dental research. However, inconsistencies in data coverage and the lack of a global overview remain as challenges. This review aimed to summarize worldwide studies using dental administrative claims databases, focusing on research questions, methodologies, and findings to identify key trends and knowledge gaps.
Methods
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR), we conducted a scoping review of studies using dental administrative claims data published between January 2010 and December 2025. We structured the review question using the Population‐Concept‐Context framework. The original search through April 2022, as registered in PROSPERO, was updated in April 2026 using the same search strategy and eligibility criteria. We searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ichushi‐Web, CiNii, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Two reviewers independently screened the records, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Cohort and case–control studies were critically appraised using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) to characterize the methodological quality of the mapped literature.
Results
Following screening, 472 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most studies originated from the United States and Taiwan, indicating marked geographical concentration; the updated search added Switzerland and New Zealand. Research topics included treatment effectiveness, the epidemiology of rare conditions, healthcare utilization, and policy evaluation. Common limitations were insufficient clinical detail, variable data quality, and limited generalizability.
Conclusions
This review highlights the expanding use of administrative claims databases in dental research and their inherent limitations. Future research should prioritize validating claims‐based diagnosis and procedure codes and linking claims data with clinical records.