Oral health status of individuals with obsessive‐compulsive disorder considering oral hygiene habits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the oral health status of individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). METHODS: Ninety-two participants, aged 18 years and older from which 46 had OCD symptoms, were included in this comparative cross-sectional study. Data on age, sex, smoking habit, educational level, and potential mediators including brushing frequency (BF) and brushing duration (BD) were collected. Clinical examinations determined outcome measures including decayed-missing-filled teeth (DMFT), presence of root caries (PoRC), gingival recession (GR), plaque index (PI), and papillary bleeding index (PBI). Pathway analysis was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Individuals with OCD had significantly lower DMFT (p < .01), higher BF (p = .01), and lower PI (p = .01); however, there were no significant differences regarding BD, GR, PBI, and PoRC (p > .05). While BD did not have a mediating role, BF mediated the effect of OCD on DMFT (B = -0.31, CI = -0.60 to -0.06) and PI (B = -0.15, CI = -0.36 to -0.03). Males had less PI (B = -1.03, CI = -1.81 to -0.24) and PBI (B = -1.14, CI = -2.09 to 0.20) than females. Except for OCD and sex, other predictors were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with OCD had lower caries experience and similar gingival health compared to controls. Part of the impact of OCD was mediated through brushing habits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".