Gastro‐oesophageal reflux is common in oligosymptomatic patients with dental erosion: A pH‐impedance and endoscopic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dental erosion is a complication of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) according to the Montreal consensus statement. However, GORD has not been comprehensively characterized in patients with dental erosions and pH-impedance measures have not been reported. OBJECTIVES: Characterize GORD in patients with dental erosions using 24-h multichannel intraluminal pH-impedance measurements (pH-MII) and endoscopy. METHODS: This single-centre study investigated reflux in successive patients presenting to dentists with dental erosion using pH-MII and endoscopy. RESULTS: Of the 374 patients, 298 (80%) reported GORD symptoms <2 per week, 72 (19%) had oesophagitis and 59 (16%) had a hiatal hernia. In the 349 with pH-MII the mean percentage time with a pH <4 (95% CI) was 11.0 (9.3-12.7), and 34.4% (31.9-36.9) for a pH <5.5, a critical threshold for dental tissue. The mean numbers of total, acidic and weakly acidic reflux episodes were 71 (63-79), 43 (38-49) and 31 (26-35), respectively. Of the reflux episodes, 19% (17-21) reached the proximal oesophagus. In 241 (69%) patients reflux was abnormal using published normal values for acid exposure time and reflux episodes. No significant associations between the severity of dental erosions and any reflux variables were found. The presence of GORD symptoms and of oesophagitis or a hiatal hernia was associated with greater reflux, but not with increased dental erosion scores. CONCLUSIONS: Significant oligosymptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux occurs in the majority of patients with dental erosion. The degree of dental erosion did not correlate with any of the accepted quantitative reflux indicators. Definition of clinically relevant reflux parameters by pH-MII for dental erosion and of treatment guidelines are outstanding. Gastroenterologists and dentists need to be aware of the widely prevalent association between dental erosion and atypical GORD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".