Oral health‐related quality of life of children with oligodontia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the functional and psychosocial impact of oligodontia in children aged 11-14 years. METHODS: Children aged 11-14 years with oligodontia were recruited from orthodontic clinics when they presented for orthodontic evaluation. All completed a copy of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire for 11- to 14-year olds, a measure of the functional and psychosocial impact of oral disorders. Information on the number and pattern of missing teeth for each child were obtained from charts and radiographs. RESULTS: Thirty-six children were included in the study. The number of missing teeth ranged from one to 14 (mean = 6.8). Just over three-quarters of the subjects reported experiencing one or more functional and psychosocial impacts 'Often' or 'Everyday/almost everyday'. Correlations between scale and sub-scale scores and the number of missing teeth were weak and nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Children with oligodontia experience substantial functional and psychosocial impacts from the condition. When compared with other clinical groups, children with oligodontia appear to have worse oral health-related quality of life than children with dental decay and malocclusion, but better oral health-related quality of life than children with oro-facial conditions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".