Association between Consumption of Carbonated Beverages and Dental Erosion – A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diet and nutritional factors affects oral health in multiple ways. Carbonated beverages have an inherent acidity due to the presence of carbonic acid, phosphoric acid and citric acid that are added to stimulate taste. Dental Erosion is an irreversible loss of dental hard tissues by a chemical process without bacterial involvement. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the association of carbonated beverages with dental erosion. MEDLINE, Science Direct and Google Scholar were searched for articles published between January 2000 to March 2020. Observational studies reporting odds ratios for comparing the risk of dental erosion in patients reporting a frequent consumption of carbonated drink versus those with infrequent consumption were included for review. Studies not reporting odds ratio or with insufficient information to calculate odds ratio were excluded from the study. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. Pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence interval were calculated using a random-effect, generic inverse variance method. A total of 20978 participants from 21 cross sectional studies and 1 cohort study were included in the analysis. The pooled crude odds ratio (19 studies) was found out to be 1.44 (95% CI, 1.23–1.68) and pooled adjusted odd ratio (12 studies) was found out to be 1.86(95% CI, 1.42–2.42). Several clinical and methodological variation among the studies contributed to statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 69%, P ≤ 0.01 for crude odds ratio and I2 = 88%, P ≤ 0.01 for adjusted odds ratio). This systematic review study demonstrates statistically significant associations between consumption of carbonated beverages and dental erosion. Because of the high clinical and methodological heterogeneity estimated pooled effect cannot be relied upon.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".