MALOCCLUSION, PAST ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT, AND SATISFACTION WITH DENTAL APPEARANCE AMONG CANADIAN ADULTS.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether malocclusion and past orthodontic treatment are associated with satisfaction with dental appearance among Canadian adults. METHODS: Using data from the 2007-09 Canadian Health Measures Survey, this cross-sectional study analyzed information from 2184 respondents (1005 men and 1179 women) aged 20-59 years. The outcome variable was satisfaction with dental appearance. Ordinal logistic regression was used to investigate the relation between satisfaction with dental appearance and 2 independent variables: malocclusion and past orthodontic treatment. RESULTS: Of the participants, 70% were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the appearance of their teeth. The prevalence of malocclusion and past orthodontic treatment was 25% and 20%, respectively. Controlling for the effect of covariates, malocclusion had a significant negative effect on satisfaction with dental appearance (p = 0.02), but past orthodontic treatment did not (p = 0.36). Satisfaction with dental appearance was greater among those in the higher-income group, never smokers, those with better self-rated health, those with no anterior decayed teeth, and those with no anterior filled teeth. CONCLUSION: Past orthodontic treatment was not linked to satisfaction with dental appearance in this sample of Canadian adults. Public health programs and clinicians should focus on addressing esthetic problems by restoring inadequate anterior teeth fillings, restoring anterior tooth decay, and implementing smoking cessation programs before considering orthodontic treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".