Preventing Early Childhood Caries through Oral Health Promotion and a Basic Package for Oral Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Untreated caries in mothers is one of the common risk factors for early childhood caries (ECC). Aim: The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of an oral health promotion program on ECC. Methodology: We conducted a pragmatic trial at 12 primary health centers in a rural community of India with 311 pregnant women using fluoride toothpaste, oral health information through pamphlets, and referral to urgent dental care or atraumatic dental treatment as the test intervention. Data were collected through structured interviews at baseline and oral examination of the children at 2 years of age. Results: Of the 311 women who participated, 274 children were followed up with at 2 years of age. ECC was low and comparable in both groups. When compared with the control group, significantly, more children from the intervention group were breastfed for over 6 months of age ( P = 0.012) and consumed less sugar ( P < 0.001). The number of mothers’ decayed teeth ( P = 0.01), children's sweet scores ( P < 0.001), and the age at which brushing commenced for children ( P = 0.04) increased the likelihood of tooth decay in children. Conclusion: The oral health promotion program had some beneficial effects in preventing caries in children when provided to pregnant women.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".