Effects of Dental Rehabilitation under General Anesthesia on Children’s Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Using Proxy Short Versions of OHRQoL Instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine the impact of comprehensive dental treatment under general anesthesia (GA) on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in children using short form versions of the Parental-Caregivers Perceptions questionnaire (P-CPQ) and Family Impact Scale (FIS). DESIGN: A pretest/posttest study involved parents whose children (N = 67) were affected with severe childhood caries and completed comprehensive dental treatment under GA. All parents completed the short form versions of the P-CPQ and FIS at baseline and 4-8 weeks following the dental treatment. To examine test-retest reliability, a convenience sample of 38 parents repeated the pretreatment questionnaires 1-2 weeks after they completed them at baseline. Statistical tests including the Kruskal-Wallis test, Cronbach's alpha, and paired t-test were used to examine cross-sectional construct validity, internal consistency, and responsiveness of the instruments, respectively. RESULTS: Cross-sectional construct validity and internal consistency were acceptable. Test-retest reliability was excellent. Large decreases in posttreatment scores were observed along with moderate to large effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Dental treatment under GA is associated with considerable improvement in OHRQoL of children and their families, as demonstrated by short form versions of the P-CPQ and FIS completed by the children's parents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".