Oral health in children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis – a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational studies examining the association between oral health and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) among children and adolescents have reported inconsistent findings. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to ascertain a potential difference in oral health and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among children and adolescents with JIA and healthy peers, and to assess the association of prevalence of oral diseases/conditions, temporomandibular disorders (TMD), including temporomandibular joint (TMJ) diseases, in relation to activity and severity of JIA. METHOD: Medline Ovid, Embase, CINAHL, SweMed+ and Cochrane Library were searched up to 25 November 2018. All articles published in English, German and Scandinavian languages focusing on children and adolescents with JIA and without JIA in relation to oral health measures, were considered. Two authors independently evaluated observational studies for inclusion. The study quality was assessed using modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed for studies focusing on dental caries as an outcome. RESULTS: Nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria, covering a range of oral diseases/conditions and OHRQoL. Eighteen studies had cross-sectional design. No mean difference of dmft/DMFT indices (decayed/missed/filled teeth) was observed between the JIA - and healthy group. None of the oral health measures including dental erosive wear, enamel defects, dental maturation and OHRQoL, indicated better oral health among children and adolescents with JIA compared to healthy group. However, periodontal conditions and TMD were more predominant among children and adolescents with JIA compared to healthy peers. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the cross-sectional studies, periodontal diseases and TMD were found to be more frequent in children and adolescents with JIA compared to healthy peers. Furthermore, more high-quality studies with large sample size are needed before we infer any concrete conclusion regarding the association between the prevalence of oral and TMJ diseases or oral conditions in relation to activity and severity of JIA.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".