MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141069179 · doi:10.1186/s12955-014-0165-5

Impact of tooth loss related to number and position on oral health quality of life among adults

2014· article· en· W2141069179 on OpenAlexaff
Marília Jesus Batista, Herenia P. Lawrence, Maria da Luz Rosário de Sousa

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsMedicineTooth lossLogistic regressionQuality of life (healthcare)Oral healthDentistryCross-sectional studyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of tooth loss on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in adults with emphasis on the number of teeth lost and their relative position in the mouth. METHODS: The study population was a cross-sectional household probability sample of 248, representing 149,635 20-64 year-old residents in Piracicaba-SP, Brazil. OHRQoL was measured using the OHIP-14. Socioeconomic, demographic, health literacy, dental services use data and clinical variables were collected. Oral examinations were performed using WHO criteria for caries diagnosis, using the DMFT index; that is, the sum of decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT). An ordinal scale for tooth loss, based on position and number of missing teeth, was the main explanatory variable. The total OHIP score was the outcome for negative binomial regression and OHIP prevalence was the outcome for logistic regression at 5% level. A hierarchical modeling approach was adopted according to conceptual model. RESULTS: OHIP score was 10.21 (SE 1.16) with 48.1% (n=115) reporting one or more impacts fairly/very often (OHIP prevalence). Significant prevalence rate ratios (PRRs) for OHIP severity were observed for those who had lost up to 12 teeth, including one or more anterior teeth (PRR=1.63, 95%CI 1.06-2.51), those who had lost 13-31 teeth (PRR=2.33, 95%CI 1.49-3.63), and the edentulous (PRR=2.66, 95%CI 1.55-4.57) compared with fully dentate adults. Other significant indicators included those who only sought dental care because of dental pain (PRR=1.67, 95%CI 1.11-2.51) or dental needs (PRR=1.84, 95%CI 1.24-2.71) and having untreated caries (PRR=1.57 95%CI 1.09-2.26). Tooth loss was not significantly associated with OHIP prevalence; instead using dental services due to dental pain (PR=2.43, 95%CI 1.01-5.82), having untreated caries (PR=3.96, 95%CI 1.85-8.51) and low income (PR=2.80, 95%CI 1.26-6.42) were significant risk indicators for reporting OHIP prevalence. CONCLUSION: Our analyses showed OHRQoL gradients consistent with the number and position of teeth missing due to oral disease. These findings suggest that the quantity of teeth lost does not necessarily reflect the impact of tooth mortality on OHRQoL and that future studies should take this into consideration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.384 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations169
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth and Quality of Life OutcomesSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207