Do patients with molar incisor hypomineralization have more dental anxiety and behavior management problems? A systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review evaluated the available evidence on whether children with molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH) have more dental fear and anxiety (DFA) and dental behavior management problems (DBMPs) than those without MIH (Prospero CDR42020203851). Unrestricted searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Lilacs, BBO, Embase, Cochrane Library, APA PsycINFO, Open Grey, and Google Scholar. Observational studies evaluating DFA and/or DBMPs in patients with and without MIH were eligible. Reviews, case reports, interventional studies, and those based on questionnaires to dentists were excluded. The methodological quality assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to synthesize data on DFA. The certainty of evidence was performed according to GRADE. Seven studies that evaluated a total of 3,805 patients were included. All of them presented methodological issues, mainly in the comparability domain. Most studies observed no significant difference in DFA between children with and without MIH. The meta-analysis did not show a significant effect of MIH on the standardized units for the DFA scores (SMD = 0.03; 95%CI: -0.06-0.12; p = 0.53; I2 = 0%). Synthesis including only the results for severe cases of MIH also did not show a significant effect of the condition on DFA scores (MD = 8.68; 95%CI: -8.64-26.00; p = 0.33; I2 = 93%). Two articles found DBMPs were significantly more frequent in patients with MIH. The overall certainty of evidence was very low for both outcomes assessed. The current evidence suggests no difference in DFA between children with and without MIH; DBMPs are more common in patients with MIH. This information should be viewed with caution because of the very low quality evidence obtained.
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 | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".