Oral hygiene status in individuals with hearing difficulties: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Most studies focusing on oral hygiene status in hearing impaired individuals are cross-sectional and focus on specific populations. A comprehensive literature search and evidence-based analysis was carried out to assess the oral hygiene status in this special group of population. METHODS: Searches were conducted in four databases with no restriction on publication date. Cross-sectional and comparative cross-sectional studies assessing the oral hygiene status and periodontal status of hearing impaired individuals using standardized evaluation criteria were included. Study selection, data extraction, and assessment of bias were carried out by four reviewers and oral hygiene, plaque, and gingival status were assessed. The risk of bias assessment was carried out by New Castle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. 29 relevant publications that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included in the systematic review whereas six studies each assessing oral hygiene and plaque status and five studies evaluating the gingival status were included in the Meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eight thousand eight hundred and ninety (8890) potentially relevant references were identified in the systematic literature search. The overall analysis of the included studies revealed a mean oral hygiene index score of 1.60 (95% CI 0.91-2.30), Gingival Index scores 1.27 (95% CI 1.02-1.51), and Plaque Index score 0.99 (95% CI 0.75-2.30) among the hearing impaired individuals. CONCLUSION: The present study reported fair oral hygiene, fair plaque status, and moderate gingivitis among the hearing impaired individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".