Is there an association between periodontal disease and root caries? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some periodontal diseases can be associated with cariogenic bacterial growth due to various oral health imbalances. This fact may be linked to a greater development of root caries. Thus, this systematic review analyzed the evidence on the association between periodontal disease and root caries. An electronic search was performed in five databases (Cochrane Library, LILACS, MedLine via PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) and two additional sources (Google Scholar and Open Grey) to partially capture the grey literature. The PECO strategy was used to identify prospective or retrospective observational studies assessing root caries in patients with periodontal disease without language or year publication restrictions. Two reviewers extracted data and evaluated the individual risk of bias in the eligible studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate the Odds Ratio (OR). The risk of bias was assessed by the NIH tool, and the certainty of evidence was classified according to the GRADE tool. There were 1,725 studies retrieved, of which four met the eligibility criteria. All of them were evaluated for the control statements for possible confounders, bias consideration, and confounding factors because they had multivariate analysis. Adults with periodontal disease had a greater chance of presenting root caries than adults without, with OR 1.38 [CI 1.25, 1.53]. The certainty of evidence was classified as very low. Within the limits presented in this review, there was an association between periodontal disease and root caries, highlighted in the qualitative synthesis and the meta-analysis results.
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 | 0.027 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".