An overview of oral health promotion in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to overview the effectiveness of different strategies used to promote oral health in adolescents. METHODS: A search of the MEDLINE via OVID database was performed through September 2007. The studies aiming to modify oral health-related lifestyle in adolescents with experimental pre- to post-test controlled study design were targeted. Oral health-related knowledge, attitudes, oral hygiene status, gingival health, and caries status were used as outcome measures for the evaluation of changes in adolescent oral health-related behaviour. RESULTS: All studies evaluating knowledge showed cognitive gains. Only slight or no improvement in attitude was reported. The average improvement in oral hygiene was 30-50%. A wide range 0-50% of the effects on gingival health was presented. However, the relapse in oral hygiene status towards baseline values was also observed. Only studies employing professionally applied preventive measures in conjunction with educational activities reported significantly lower caries incidence. CONCLUSION: The limited success of the behavioural interventions and the lack of diversity in methods used do not allow identification of the best ways to promote oral health towards adolescents. Therefore, alternative approaches for oral health promotion in adolescents should be explored.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".