Oral health and orofacial pain in older people with dementia: a systematic review with focus on dental hard tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to provide a systematic overview including a quality assessment of studies about oral health and orofacial pain in older people with dementia, compared to older people without dementia. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. The following search terms were used: dementia and oral health or stomatognathic disease. The quality assessment of the included articles was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: The search yielded 527 articles, of which 37 were included for the quality assessment and quantitative overview. The median NOS score of the included studies was 5, and the mean was 4.9 (SD 2.2). The heterogeneity between the studies was considered too large to perform a meta-analysis. An equivalent prevalence of orofacial pain, number of teeth present, decayed missing filled teeth index, edentulousness percentage, and denture use was found for both groups. However, the presence of caries and retained roots was higher in older people with dementia than in those without. CONCLUSIONS: Older people with dementia have worse oral health, with more retained roots and coronal and root caries, when compared to older people without dementia. Little research focused on orofacial pain in older people with dementia. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current state of oral health in older people with dementia could be improved with oral care education of caretakers and regular professional dental care.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".