Do hemophiliacs have a higher risk for dental caries than the general population?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine if patients with hemophilia were at increased risk for dental decay as compared to the general population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Census sampling was used in this case-control study to recruit cases (patients with hemophilia) and a control group individuals recruited randomly from the general population, which were matched with cases based on gender, age and place of residence. Clinical examinations included dental health and salivary assessments (flow rate, buffer capacity, caries-associated bacteria) and a structured questionnaire which inquired about socioeconomic status and dental health-related behaviors. RESULTS: In the deciduous dentition, the overall caries experience (dmf) differed statistically significantly (P=0.003) between the hemophiliacs (2.6±2.6) and their matched healthy controls (6.1±2.5). Bivariate analyses did not reveal significant differences between cases and controls regarding salivary functions, except that higher bacteriological counts were found in healthy controls in deciduous dentitions than in patients with hemophilia (P=0.019). Children without hemophilia were from higher socioeconomic status families than hemophiliacs (P=0.004), but such differences were not found for adults (P=0.090). When compared to healthy adults, adult hemophiliacs had more gum bleeding at rest (P<0.001) as well as during their tooth brushing (P=0.007) and they also consumed more soft drinks than controls (P=0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Better dental health was observed in children with hemophilia as compared to children without it. There were no differences in dental health between adult hemophiliacs and healthy controls from the general population. None of the linear multiple regression models confirmed hemophilia to be an additional caries risk when it was controlled for other caries determinants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".