Oral health in children with physical (Cerebral Palsy) and intellectual (Down Syndrome) disabilities: Systematic review I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, patients with physical and/or intellectual disabilities presented greater oral pathology, owing to their condition and to other external factors. Improved social and health conditions make it necessary to update knowledge on their oral and dental health. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For this purpose, a bibliographic review was done regarding the state of oral health of children with these two types of disability, in comparison with a control group. Some of the guidelines of the PRISMA statement were taken into account. The ranking of the articles found is based on the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The final number of articles evaluated was 14. Parameters such as dental caries, oral hygiene, gingival health, dental traumas, malocclusion and habits were considered. RESULTS: There is no consensus among authors regarding dental caries, oral hygiene and gingival health. The different results obtained are due in part to the fact that the methodologies used were not the same. However, it has been noted that, when studying other parameters and regardless of the methodology employed, the results obtained are similar. CONCLUSIONS: Children with physical and intellectual disabilities constitute a group that needs early and regular dental care in order to prevent and limit the severity of the pathologies observed. KEY WORDS: Oral health, dental caries, malocclusion, oral habits, dental trauma, oral hygiene, disabled child, cerebral palsy and Down syndrome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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".