Etiology of molar incisor hypomineralization – A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH) is a common developmental dental defect of permanent teeth, which can increase the risk of dental caries, infection and hospitalization. The etiology is currently unclear although prenatal or early childhood health factors are suspected. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the strength of evidence linking etiological factors with MIH. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using the Medline and Embase electronic databases for studies investigating environmental etiological factors of MIH. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of studies. The level of evidence and bias was determined for all eligible studies according to Australian National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines for systematic reviews of etiology and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: From a total of 2254 studies identified through electronic and hand searching, 28 were eligible for inclusion. Twenty-five of these investigated MIH and three investigated a related condition in primary teeth, hypomineralized second primary molars (HSPM), and these were analysed separately. A limited number of studies reported significant associations between MIH and pre- and perinatal factors such as maternal illness and medication use in pregnancy, prematurity and birth complications. Early childhood illness was implicated as an etiological factor in MIH in several studies, in particular fever, asthma and pneumonia. The studies investigating HSPM revealed an association with maternal alcohol consumption, infantile fever and ethnicity. However, the validity of these findings is impaired by study design, lack of adjustment for confounders, lack of detail and consistency of exposures investigated and poor reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Childhood illness is likely to be associated with MIH. Further prospective studies of the etiology of MIH/HSPM are needed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".