Prevalence of hypomineralised second primary molars (HSPM): A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the prevalence of HSPM worldwide on a child and a tooth level and investigate the influence of diagnostic criteria on the prevalence of HSPM. DESIGN: A comprehensive literature search was performed through MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The grey literature was also screened as were the reference lists of included studies. An adaptation of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled prevalence of HSPM. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 1,988 articles, 487 were retrieved for full-text evaluation, and 37 studies were included in the meta-analysis (32 for child and 23 for tooth level prevalence), providing data from 26,805 individuals and 81,107 molars. The prevalence of HSPM was 6.8% (95% CI 4.98%-8.86%) on a child level and 4.08% on a tooth level (95% CI = 2.80%-5.59%). The diagnostic criteria used did not seem to influence the prevalence results (P > .05). The majority of the papers (75%) showed a low-to-moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There was a broad variation in the prevalence reported that may be attributed to differences in the study population. The present meta-analysis showed a HSPM prevalence worldwide of 6.8% on a child level and 4.1% on a tooth level.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".