MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177277314 · doi:10.1177/23800844211026608

Impact of Wearing Dentures on Dietary Intake, Nutritional Status, and Eating: A Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3177277314 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJDR Clinical & Translational Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenturesMedicineDentistryEdentulismCINAHLMEDLINEPopulationQuality of life (healthcare)GerontologyEnvironmental healthOral healthPsychological interventionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: A key purpose of denture provision is to enable eating, yet the body of evidence pertaining to the impact of dentures on wide-ranging nutritional outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review published evidence pertaining to the effect of wearing removable dental prosthesis on dietary intake, nutritional status, eating function, and eating related-quality of life (ERQoL). METHODS: Eight questions relating to the impact of wearing dentures on nutritional outcomes were addressed. The target population was healthy adults aged ≥18 y. Data sources included Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PubMed. Included were all human epidemiologic studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa score was used for appraisal of study quality. Harvest plots, vote counting, and accompanying narrative provided the basis for synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 1,245 records identified, 134 were retrieved and eligibility assessed by 2 reviewers, and 41 studies were included in the synthesis (14 rated good quality, 20 fair, and 7 poor). The balance of data supported a positive impact of wearing full (5/7 studies) or partial (3/3 studies) dentures (vs. no dentures) on nutritional status, though no clear direction of effect was detected for the impact of dentures on dietary intake. The balance of data clearly showed that objective measures of eating function were compromised in full (14/15 studies) and partial (6/7 studies) denture wearers as compared with the dentate. Data showed that ERQoL was also compromised in denture wearers as compared with the dentate (3/3 studies). However, data showed a positive impact of wearing dentures on ERQoL (5/5 studies) as opposed to wearing no dentures. CONCLUSION: The balance of evidence shows that despite no clear pattern on impact of wearing dentures on measured dietary intake, in those with tooth loss, wearing dentures can have a positive impact on nutritional status and enjoyment of eating. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The results of this systematic review can be used to advocate for health care services to address prosthodontic need to benefit nutritional outcomes. The findings will be of use in educating health care professionals on the impact of wearing dentures and not addressing prosthodontic need on nutritional outcomes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.397
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it