Vegetarian diet and its possible influence on dental health: A systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: People following a vegetarian diet could be more prone to oral health problems than people following a nonvegetarian diet. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the possible impacts of following a vegetarian diet on dental hard tissues, focusing on caries development, dental erosion and number of natural teeth. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched systematically up until 17 April 2019. Original studies comparing dental health (exclusively focusing on dental hard tissues) in vegetarians and nonvegetarians were selected. Study characteristics and outcome data were extracted, and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. When a dental health characteristic was reported in three or more papers in a comparable way, a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-one papers reporting on 18 studies were included in this review. In meta-analyses, the vegetarian diet was associated with a higher risk for dental erosion (odds ratio: 2.40 [95% confidence interval: 1.24, 4.66]; P = .009) and a lower decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) score (mean difference: -0.15 [95% confidence interval: -0.29, -0.02]; P = .023), although the quality of most included studies was poor and the findings for DMFT score became insignificant when only studies on adults were included in the meta-analysis. A meta-analysis for the other dental characteristics was not possible due to the limited number of eligible studies. There was inconsistent evidence for a link between following a vegetarian diet and dental caries or the number of natural teeth. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present study, the findings suggest that following a vegetarian diet may be associated with a greater risk of dental erosion.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".