High prevalence of periodontitis in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of periodontitis in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes, and if poor glycemic control is associated with increasing prevalence of the disease. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study involving children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes. A questionnaire related to oral health care history and oral health behaviors was administered to each participant and they then underwent a full-mouth oral evaluation. In addition, clinical and metabolic parameters were extracted from the clinical chart. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty one children and adolescents (8-17 years, 11 months) participated. Overall, 45.5% presented some degree of periodontitis, with 10 (8.3%) mild, 36 (29.8%) moderate, and nine (7.4%) severe. The periodontitis group (PD-group) had higher mean gingival and plaque indexes, periodontal probing depth, and clinical attachment loss than the group without periodontitis (NoPD-group) (p<0.05). A statistically significant relationship between the prevalence of periodontitis and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was verified in the bivariate (odds ratio [OR] 1.31 [95% CI, 1.13-1.53], p = 0.001) and multivariate (OR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.03-1.61], p = 0.03) analysis. For the adjustment variables, associations were verified for duration of diabetes, age, body mass index z-score, lack of running water, insulin use, and acanthosis nigricans. CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes presented high rates of periodontitis comparable with that seen in previous studies in youth with diabetes. Uncontrolled HbA1c influences prevalence of periodontal disease. The lack of matched control group and radiographs are limitations of the study. Comprehensive periodontal examination is essential for children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes to prevent, identify, and treat periodontitis early.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".