Passive Smoking and Oral Health of Infants, Preschoolers, and Children: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Almost half of the world's children experience passive smoking, which is linked to numerous oral health conditions. The aim is to synthesize data on the impact of passive smoking on oral health of infants, preschoolers, and children. AIMS AND METHODS: A search was conducted across Medline (via EBSCOhost), PubMed, and Scopus up to February 2023. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: The initial search produced 1221 records and after removal of duplicates, screening by title and abstract, and full-text assessment, 25 studies were eligible for review and data extraction. The majority of studies (94.4%) found a correlation between passive smoking and increased prevalence of dental caries with three studies suggesting a dose-response relationship. Prenatal passive smoking exposure in 81.8% of studies indicated an increased dental caries experience compared to postnatal exposure. Low parental education, socioeconomic status, dietary habits, oral hygiene, and gender affected the level of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure and dental caries risk. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review strongly suggest a significant association between dental caries in the deciduous dentition and passive smoking. Early intervention and education on the effects of passive smoking on infants and children will allow for the improvement in oral health outcomes and reduction in smoking-associated systemic conditions. The results justify all health professionals paying more attention to passive smoking when conducting pediatric patient histories, contributing to improved diagnosis and appropriate treatment planning with more suitable follow-up schedules. IMPLICATIONS: The evidence from this review that environmental tobacco smoke and passive smoking is a risk factor for oral health conditions, both prenatally and postnatally during early childhood, justifies all health professionals paying more attention to passive smoking when conducting pediatric patient histories. Early intervention and appropriate parental education regarding the effects of secondhand smoke on infants and children will allow for the minimization of dental caries, improvement in oral health outcomes and overall reduction in smoking-associated systemic conditions for the children exposed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".