Periodontal and oral health status of people with Cystic Fibrosis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: People with Cystic Fibrosis (PWCF) may be presumed to be at lower risk of periodontal disease due to long term antibiotic use but this has not been comprehensively investigated. The oral hygiene and periodontal status of PWCF in comparison to the general population is not well established. The objective of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the literature on periodontal and oral hygiene status in PWCF to see if this group are at increased risk of periodontal disease (gingivitis or periodontitis). DATA SOURCES: 5 databases were searched: Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: The search resulted in 614 publications from databases with one more publication identified by searching bibliographies. 13 studies were included in the qualitative analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies showed better oral hygiene, with lower levels of gingivitis and plaque among people with Cystic Fibrosis (PWCF) than controls. Interestingly, despite this, many studies showed that PWCF had higher levels of dental calculus. Three studies found there was no difference in Oral Hygiene between PWCF and controls. One study found that PWCF aged between 6 and 9.5 years had increased levels of clinical gingivitis, and one study showed that PWCF with gingivitis had more bleeding on probing than people without CF. The vast majority of PWCF examined were children- only five studies included people over 18 years, and only one looked exclusively at adults. There is a need for further study into the periodontal health of PWCF- particularly those over the age of 18. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: There are currently no guidelines referring to oral care in PWCF. Studies have suggested that the oral cavity acts as a reservoir of bacteria which may colonise the lungs. If PWCF are at increased risk of periodontal disease, they should attend for regular screenings to facilitate early detection.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".