MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756470979 · doi:10.1177/2380084417714789

A Systematic Review Examining the Oral Health Status of Persons with Dementia

2017· review· en· W2756470979 on OpenAlexaff
Norine Foley, Rebecca Affoo, Walter L. Siqueira, Ruth E. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueJDR Clinical & Translational Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicineOral hygieneCINAHLSystematic reviewOral healthMeta-analysisMEDLINEDentistryConfidence intervalDiseaseGerontologyPsychological interventionInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the oral health of persons with dementia has been shown to be poor, no systematic reviews have been published that examined the topic in depth, including participants with dementia representing the full spectrum of disease severity, and evaluating a broad scope of oral health assessments. The aim of this study was to conduct a current literature review to fill this gap in knowledge. A systematic search of 5 databases (CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science) was conducted to identify all relevant studies published up to May 2016. There were no exclusions related to study type, severity of dementia, dentate status, or living arrangements. Results were reported descriptively and summarized. Meta-analyses were performed where possible and reported as mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Twenty-eight studies were identified. Assessments were conducted of tooth status, active dental caries, hygiene (plaque/calculus) of natural and artificial teeth, periodontal diseases, denture status (retention, stability, denture-related mucosal lesions), and oral health-related quality of life. Across all evaluations, persons with dementia generally had scores/results suggestive of poor oral health. In meta-analyses, compared with persons without dementia, those with dementia had a significantly fewer number of teeth (MD, -1.52; 95% CI, -0.2.52 to -0.52; P = 0.003; n = 13 studies), more carious teeth (SMD, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.48; P = 0.028; n = 9), significantly worse oral hygiene evaluated using a broad range of assessment tools (SMD, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.19, P < 0.0001; n = 7), and significantly poorer periodontal health (SMD, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.70; P = 0.02; n = 6 studies). The oral health status of persons with mild to severe forms of dementia, who were living in both the community and residential care facilities, was found to be poor across a broad range of dental assessments. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study define the scope of oral issues and quantify the degree of impairment in individuals with dementia, evaluated using a variety of oral health measures. The results revealed that poor oral health is associated with dementia.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.011
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.653
GPT teacher head0.640
Teacher spread0.013 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJDR Clinical & Translational ResearchSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207