Long-term Dental Visiting Patterns and Adult Oral Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, the evidence supporting the benefits of dental visiting comes from cross-sectional studies. We investigated whether long-term routine dental visiting was associated with lower experience of dental caries and missing teeth, and better self-rated oral health, by age 32. A prospective cohort study in New Zealand examined 932 participants' use of dentistry at ages 15, 18, 26, and 32. At each age, routine attenders (RAs) were identified as those who (a) usually visited for a check-up, and (b) had made a dental visit during the previous 12 months. Routine attending prevalence fell from 82% at age 15 to 28% by 32. At any given age, routine attenders had better-than-average oral health, fewer had teeth missing due to caries, and they had lower mean DS and DMFS scores. By age 32, routine attenders had better self-reported oral health and less tooth loss and caries. The longer routine attendance was maintained, the stronger the effect. Routine dental attendance is associated with better oral health.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".