The Relationship Between Tooth Loss and Hypertension: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding association between tooth loss and hypertension is important for improving cardiovascular health. We searched for publications that were published between July 2011 and June 2021 using three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus) and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the association between tooth loss and hypertension. Quality assessments were performed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program guideline, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the GRADE approach. Twenty studies (17 cross-sectional studies, and 3 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria for this review. Most cross-sectional studies showed that subjects with more tooth loss exhibited a greater proportion of hypertension and higher systolic blood pressure than those with less tooth loss. Meta-analyses revealed a statistically significant association between tooth loss and hypertension. The pooled ORFs of hypertension for having tooth loss with no tooth loss and for edentulous with dentate were 2.22 (95% CI 2.00-2.45) and 4.94 (95% CI: 4.04–6.05), respectively. In cohort studies, subjects with more tooth loss had a greater incidence of hypertension than those with less tooth loss during the follow-up period. The present systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that tooth loss is associated with an increased risk of hypertension and higher systolic blood pressure.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".