Oral Complications Associated with the Piercing of Oral and Perioral Tissues and the Corresponding Degree of Awareness among Public and Professionals: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study systematically reviews the literature to evaluate the potential relationships between oral/perioral piercing and consequent oral complications in the corresponding society. The second objective was determining public/professional sectors' awareness of the subject. This research followed PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines for conducting systematic reviews and searching scientific databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar, until April 2023. Cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies in English were deemed eligible. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using proper quality assessment guidelines. Of the 965 initial articles retrieved, 34 were considered suitable for qualitative synthesis after screening procedures and removing duplicates and irrelevant records. There appears to be an imbalance between the general public's low and dentists' high awareness. This draws attention to the shortage of professional and societal knowledge-sharing and education initiatives. Women were more than twice as likely as men to have oral piercings. Piercing usage had a low incidence among a cohort of students with a mean age of 16. Merely circumstantial evidence has indicated a plausible correlation between oral and perioral piercings and the emergence of secondary bacterial and fungal colonization, particularly periodontopathogenic bacteria and Candida albicans. Furthermore, several adverse consequences have been observed linked to various piercings-such as lip and tongue piercings. These include caries, gingivitis/periodontitis, dental fractures, enamel chipping/cracks, plaque buildup, bone loss, bleeding, inflammation, and swelling. Given the risks involved and the complications that might impair oral health, the prevalence of oral piercings is alarming. As a result, public health authorities need to firmly support initiatives to raise awareness of the risks associated with oral/perioral piercings. For piercers to enhance their expertise in this field, professional training is necessary because there is a shortage of knowledge on the possible adverse effects of piercings.
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 | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".