Do Patients with Extrinsic Black Tooth Stains Have a Lower Dental Caries Experience? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have suggested that individuals affected by extrinsic black tooth stains have less dental caries experience in comparison to those without this condition. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether there is scientific evidence demonstrating that extrinsic black stains are a protective factor for the occurrence of dental caries. This systematic review was developed in accordance with the PRISMA statement and the research question was determined using the PECO strategy. Electronic searches were conducted in the PubMed, Science Direct, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for relevant articles published up to September 2018. All articles included were submitted to an appraisal of methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the data were extracted for meta-analysis. The search strategy resulted in the retrieval of 9,108 publications. After the application of the eligibility criteria, 18 articles were selected for analysis, 13 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated that individuals with extrinsic black stains involving primary (median, MD: -0.78 [-1.09; -0.48]; I2 = 44%) and permanent (MD: -0.50 [-0.93; -0.08]; I2 = 86%) teeth have a lower dental caries experience in comparison to those without this condition. Patients with extrinsic black tooth stains have a lower dental caries experience in cross-sectional studies.
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 | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".