DENTAL CARIES PREVALENCE AND ORAL HEALTH STATUS IN 3 TO 15 YEARS OLD SCHOOL STUDENTS IN ABBOTTABAD CITY, PAKISTAN: AN ASSESSMENT SURVEY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To assess the score of dental caries (hereinafter referred to as Carries) and status of dental hygiene practices in school-going children aged 3-15 years with specific diagnosis and timely referral for the required treatment, according to each participant's oral health condition. Materials & Methods: This study was performed on school-going children of ages 3 to 15 years in Abbottabad City, via a cross-sectional survey method. Non-probability convenient sampling technique was used. Data were collected during the ‘Dental Awareness Programme’ from different schools in Abbottabad. Total n=634 were screened and caries score of DMFT/dmft index and orthodontic treatment need were observed and recorded. Also, questions about oral hygiene practices were asked like frequencies of tooth brushing & sugary diet intake from school children and a written record was maintained on structured survey form. Gathered data was import in IBM-SPSS file version 21. Descriptive statistics were used to verify the standard deviation and arithmetic mean of all variables and the comparison between variables like, Caries score; intake of sugary diet daily, age & different school were made and presented in tables & figures. Results: This research study shows high number of Caries cases 69.4% (Mean= 2.76, SD= 2.738, n= 634). A higher score was observed and recorded for the D-component in the total DMFT score; however habit of daily tooth brushing and maximum intake of sugary diet were found common among all the school-going children. Conclusion: A high number of caries-affected cases were found, in this study, among school-going children and that is a critical oral health state. Children themselves are negligent towards their needs for good oral health and necessary professional care. Increased DMFT scores of ‘mostly decayed’ and ‘less filled’ teeth were founded. It was recorded that tooth brushing by children is not correctly performed, mechanically. Also, children were found to eat a sugary diet daily. The value of a “preventive approach” can lead to the good oral hygiene of children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".