Correlation between tobacco smoking and dental caries: Asystematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tobacco is responsible for infaust oral conditions and many oral diseases. Dental caries is one of the most prevalent oral diseases. The association between tobacco smoking and dental caries has become an important recent topic of research. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between tobacco smoking and dental caries. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane, up to December 2018. Original observational articles that estimated relevance between tobacco smoking and dental caries in adults were included. Caries were determined by measurements of decayed, missing or filled teeth (DMFT), or decayed, missing or filled surface (DMFS), or caries-related microflora levels. Trials did not include a non-smoking group, exposure to smokeless tobacco products, or participants under 16 years old. Also, literature reviews, comments, case reports and letters to the editor were not considered. Both methods of systematic review and meta-analysis were adopted. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the methodological quality of all the included studies. RESULTS: =70%, chi-squared p=0.07, respectively) and statistically significant (mean difference, MD=1.20, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.40-2.00, z-test p=0.003; MD=1.88, 95% CI: 0.99-2.77, z-test p<0.0001, respectively). The quality scores of all varied from 7 to 9. CONCLUSIONS: There is a correlation between tobacco smoking and an increased risk of dental caries. However, the overall representativeness of the studies is not good. More prospective and extensive research on this topic is needed to get validation. Even so, it is imperative that people quit tobacco smoking.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".