Unfavourable beliefs about oral health and safety of dental care during pregnancy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral conditions such as gingivitis and periodontitis are correlated with adverse pregnancy outcomes such as preeclampsia, preterm birth and low birth weight. Oral health-related unfavourable beliefs can have negative influences on oral health behaviours including hesitation in accessing preventative dental treatments and dental service utilization. The objective of this systematic review was to examine unfavourable beliefs that expectant or new mothers frequently hold about oral health and the safety of dental care during pregnancy. METHODS: An electronic database search on PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and MEDLINE (Ovid) followed by forward and backward citation tracing of the included studies was conducted. All English primary studies regardless of the year of publication were independently screened by two reviewers to identify studies addressing unfavourable beliefs about oral health and dental care during pregnancy. The CLARITY tool was applied to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. RESULTS: Out of a total of 5766 records, 39 quantitative and six qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. The commonly held unfavourable beliefs were regarding the safety of dental services utilization and dental treatment procedures, the adverse impacts of pregnancy on oral health, and oral hygiene necessity during pregnancy. The most discussed unfavourable beliefs included "pregnant women lose their teeth because of pregnancy" (n = 18), "dental treatments are not safe and harm the fetus" (n = 17), and "the developing baby absorbs calcium from the mother's teeth" (n = 14). CONCLUSIONS: Unfavourable beliefs about oral health and dental care utilization are common among pregnant women and new mothers. The literature suggests that a low level of oral health knowledge and seeking information from social networks can contribute to such beliefs. This has implications for health promotion.
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) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".