Dental visits, oral hygiene behaviour, and orthodontic treatment in Switzerland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the first survey in 1992/93, the Swiss Health Survey (SHS) has been repeated every 5 years (1997, 2002 and 2007). In the present study, dental visits (dental care utilisation within the last 12 months), oral hygiene measures and the frequency of orthodontic treatments in the Swiss population in 2002 were examined and dental visits were compared with the years 1992/93, 1997 and 2007. Weighted data were analysed regarding different sociodemographic factors. From 1992 to 2002, dental visits among the 15-74-year-old declined continuously (1992/93: 70%, 1997: 66%, 2002: 63%), whereas in 2007 a slight increase (66%) was documented. In the survey from 2002, a large proportion (74%) of the population stated to clean their teeth or prostheses several times a day, predominantly with a manual toothbrush, whereas 28% applied an electric toothbrush and almost half of the respondents also used dental floss or toothpicks. Fewer visits and less intensive oral hygiene measures were observed among the elderly, men, weak social strata, smokers, persons with more than 8 missing teeth and in the group with removable dentures. Almost a quarter of the population had orthodontic treatment with the highest proportion among the 15-24-year-old (56%).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".