Erosive Tooth Wear among Adults in Lithuania: A Cross-Sectional National Oral Health Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Erosive tooth wear has a multifactorial origin, where multiple risks contribute to its initiation and subsequent progression. The prevalence of tooth wear varies among countries; therefore, national studies are needed to examine the prevalence of this condition and its associated determinants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of this national study included a total of 1,397 adults (response rate of 52%). Severity and number of teeth with erosive tooth wear, caries experience (D3MFS), and fluorosis were assessed clinically. A self-reported questionnaire inquired about sociodemographics, oral health behavior, diet, and general health. Fluoride levels in drinking water at the recruitment areas were also recorded. Data were analyzed by bivariate and multivariate methods. RESULTS: The prevalence of erosive tooth wear in enamel and dentin combined was 59% among 35- to 44-year-old, 75% among 45- to 54-year-old, 70% among 55- to 64-year-old, and 66% among 65- to 74-year-old males. The prevalence among females in the respective age groups was 44, 60, 63, and 59%. Erosive tooth wear in enamel was associated with a lower fluoride level (≤1 ppm) in the drinking water (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.2). Erosive tooth wear in dentin was positively associated with male gender (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.5), periurban/rural residency (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4), older age (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9), presence of reflux (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.0-10.9), and negatively with higher D3MFS scores (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.9). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of erosive tooth wear in enamel and dentin was relatively high in Lithuania; the erosive tooth wear in enamel and dentin combined was 52% among 35- to 44-year-olds, 68% among 45- to 54-year-olds, 67% among 55- to 64-year-olds, and 63% among 65- to 74-year-olds. Lower fluoride level in drinking water was associated with erosive tooth wear in enamel. Male gender, residency in periurban/rural areas, older age, and presence of acid reflux were associated with higher odds, while higher D3MFS scores were associated with lower odds for erosive tooth wear in dentin. These results can be used to plan dental public health prevention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".