Dental fluorosis prevalence in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: In order to improve the understanding of dental fluorosis prevalence in Saudi Arabia and have a good idea of the quality of the studies that have been conducted, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of dental fluorosis among people who live in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: Online databases EMBASE and MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched, without any restriction regarding age. In addition, there were no study design filters applied to the search engine. Study selection and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. Studies were included if they were conducted in Saudi Arabia on any population (adults and children) and collected dental fluorosis data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies. A narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Seven cross-sectional studies were identified. Areas of weakness in study design/conduct were low response rates, and identification and handling of confounding factors. Statistical pooling of data was not appropriate due to substantial heterogeneity, due in part to variation in sample size, variation of water fluoridation concentration, index used, targeted population and age group. Seven studies present dental fluorosis at any level. The proportion of dental fluorosis prevalence at any level ranged from 0.00 to 0.91. Six studies explored the prevalence of dental fluorosis of aesthetic-only level of concern. The proportion of dental fluorosis in this category ranged from 0.07 to 0.76. CONCLUSION: The proportion of dental fluorosis at any level ranged from 0.00 to 0.91 and fluorosis at aesthetics level ranged from 0.07 to 0.76. However, current data does not provide a complete assessment of dental fluorosis across Saudi Arabia. Existing studies are limited in terms of the population covered. The included studies had methodological flaws.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".