Caries and periodontal disease of the elderly in Pomerania, Germany: results of the Study of Health in Pomerania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the oral health status of older adults living in northeastern Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Representative samples of adults aged 60 years or older were examined as part of Study of the Health in Pomerania, a cross-sectional, population-based study. Data on 1446 subjects aged 60-79 years were evaluated for coronal caries using the decayed/missing/filled teeth (DMFT) index, root caries using the root caries index (RCI), calculus, plaque, bleeding on probing, pocket depth and attachment loss. RESULTS: The prevalence of edentulousness varied from 16% in the 60-65-year-old group to 30% in the 75-79-year-old group, whereas the median number of remaining natural teeth per subject varied from 14 in the youngest age group (60-65 years) to one in the oldest (75-79 years). Among subjects aged 60-69 years, a quarter (26%) of the teeth examined had coronal restoration against 17% in the oldest age group (70-79 years). Coronal caries was found in 2% of the teeth in both age groups. Among teeth with gingival recession, 6% had fillings on root surfaces and 2% had root caries, irrespective of age. In all, 11% of the subjects had at least one untreated coronal lesion and 27% had at least one untreated root caries lesion. Plaque score, calculus score and bleeding on probing were higher in the oldest age group (70-79 years). The prevalence of periodontal disease expressed as the presence of at least one periodontal pocket of 4 mm and more, was higher in men and among the younger subjects (men aged 60-69 years: 85% vs. 71% in 70-79-year-old men; women aged 60-69 years: 71% vs. 62% in 70-79-year-olds). The prevalence of attachment loss of 3 mm or more followed a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: It seems therefore that in this population, the major oral health concern is related to caries and the small number of teeth retained among the dentate subjects.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".