Dental Caries in Children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are more affected by dental caries than children without ADHD by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. DESIGN: Electronic searches were performed in 4 databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) in July 2021. Grey literature search in OpenGrey, a search in Google Scholar, and searches in the reference list of included articles were also conducted. The eligibility criteria were observational studies in which children with ADHD were compared with children without ADHD with respect to the dental caries. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, applying the Joanna Briggs tool were performed by 2 reviewers independently. Meta-analysis and assessment of heterogeneity among studies were conducted with the meta-package of RStudio using the R programming language (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria). Results of meta-analysis were provided in mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and confidence intervals (CIs). For assessment of heterogeneity, Baujat plot and influence analysis plot were obtained. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included and 10 were incorporated into meta-analyses. The meta-analysis showed that children with ADHD had a higher decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT) index than their peers without ADHD (I2 = 42%; MD = 0.75 [0.38-1.13]). For decayed, missing, and filled surfaces (I2 = 0; MD = 0.39 [-0.02 to 0.80]) and decayed surfaces (ds) (I2 = 0%; MD = 0.35 [-0.63 to 1.33]), no difference between groups was observed. In addition, children with ADHD had higher odds of having dental caries than their healthy peers (OR = 3.31 [1.25, 8.73]; I2 = 0%). After assessment of heterogeneity among studies, sensitivity analysis was conducted for DMFT. One study was removed and the significant difference between groups remained. Children with ADHD had a significantly higher DMFT index than their peers without ADHD (MD = 0.98 [CI = 0.75, 1.20]; I2 = 0%) Risk of bias ranged from low to high. CONCLUSION: The main shortcoming of the included studies is the high risk of bias regarding the strategies to deal with confounding factors. Within its limitations, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that children with ADHD were more likely to develop dental caries than their healthy counterparts. FUNDING: No funding. REGISTRATION: CRD42021238923.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".