Perspective and practice of root caries management: A multicountry study – Part II: A deeper dive into risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The potential of an improved understanding to prevent and treat a complex oral condition such as root caries is important, given its correlation with multiple factors and the uncertainty surrounding the approach/material of choice. Deeper insights into risk factors may improve the quality of treatment and reduce the formation of root surface caries. AIM: The present work aims to gain knowledge about dentists' opinions and experiences on assessing the risk factor related to the development of root caries and to help identify any overlooked factors that may contribute to less efficacious clinical outcomes. METHODOLOGY: A questionnaire related to root surface caries was distributed among practicing dentists in nine different countries, namely the United Kingdom, Libya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Brazil, India, Malaysia, and Iraq. Questionnaire responses were analyzed, and the results were compared among the groups. RESULTS: Dentists around the world ranked the oral hygiene status of patients as the most important factor in the development of root surface caries. Patients with poor oral hygiene, active periodontal disease, reduced salivary flow, and gingival recession are perceived to have a higher risk of developing new root surface caries. There is a greater focus on prevention in the UK and greater levels of untreated dental disease in other countries, especially those recovering from civil wars. CONCLUSION: This work identified some overlooked factors that may have contributed to the less efficacious clinical outcomes reported in the literature. It is hoped that this deep dive into risk factors coupled with the findings presented in Part I of this study will be used as a basis for a more comprehensive investigation into the management of patients with root surface caries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".