MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307525747 · doi:10.53350/pjmhs22169307

Dental Neglect Score amongst Orthodontic Braces patients in Punjab Dental Hospital

2022· article· en· W4307525747 on OpenAlexaff
Shibra Khurshid, Muttayaba Irfan, Aamina Sagheer, Hafiza Asma Jawaid, Asmi Shaheen, Maham Munir

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Canadian institutionsCollège Montmorency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOral hygieneDentistryNeglectOral healthCross-sectional studyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Dental Neglect refers to ones attitudes and behavior that cause harmful consequences in oral health. Subjects with greater dental negligence are linked with more caries, lesser remaining teeth, irregular visits to the dentist and are more likely to have prolonged time duration between their dental appointments.. The Dental Neglect Scale (DNS) is valued as a reliable measure of dental negligence in various samples of children, adolescents and adults. Maintenance of conscientious practice related to oral health is key to success in orthodontic patients. This is because orthodontic appliances facilitate the accumulation of plaque by making cleaning difficult over the teeth. Failure to keep up the proper oral hygiene measures can lead to accumulation of plaque. This causes gingival inflammation and damages periodontal health. Aim: To determine dental negligence score among orthodontic patients with braces and assess their associated oral hygiene practices. Study Design: Cross sectional study Place and duration of the study: This study took 6 months to complete and was conducted in Punjab Dental Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan. Methodology :104 orthodontic patients willing to participate and who had given informed consent were chosen for the study. Questionnaires were distributed and data was analyzed using SPSS 2020. Results: Before starting orthodontic treatment only 14% of respondents went regularly to the dentist and majority 64% had never been to a dentist before. However, after starting the orthodontic treatment 88% of the respondents became regular in their visits. This shows their dental negligence before and after starting the orthodontic treatment. Percentage of respondents brushing twice daily are around 70 %, using soft tooth brush are 77%, combining horizontal and vertical technique of brushing are 64%. Interdental brush is used by 66% of the respondents. However, other oral hygiene and dental care measures are inadequately maintained by orthodontic patients at home. This is especially true with regards to use of floss which is done by only 4% of the respondents. Conclusions: Dental neglect results in numerous harmful effects to the oral health. This study has shown variation in oral hygiene practices among responding patients. Orthodontist should encourage different practices that enhance oral hygiene in patients. Patients should also understand the increased need to maintain oral hygiene with use of braces and hence apply all the preached dental care and oral hygiene measures. Keywords: Dental negligence scale, orthodontic patients with fixed appliances, braces, oral hygiene

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia TechniquesFrench-language works237,207