Prevalence and socio-behavioral determinants of early childhood caries in children 1–5- year- old in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), early childhood caries (ECC) is still considered a major global health problem despite the general improvement in oral health practice. This study aimed to assess ECC's prevalence, severity, and key social and behavioral determinants in Iranian children 1-5- years of age. METHOD: This cross-sectional study recruited Iranian 1-5-year-olds with a three-stage stratified clustered sampling method. After providing consent, parents were interviewed using a validated questionnaire, including questions on child characteristics and behavioral factors. Each child underwent a dental examination by one of four trained and calibrated dentists. Associations between key covariates of interest and primary outcome measures were assessed by multivariable logistic regression modeling and multivariate generalized negative binomial regression modeling after weightings were applied. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS V25 and Stata V14.2 software packages. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The mean age of 909 participants was 41.1±1.2 months, 48.6% were male, and 38.1% lived in rural areas. The overall prevalence of ECC was 53.2% and mean dmft score was 2.7± 0.3. Key determinants associated with ECC included living rurally (p = 0.009, OR = 2.13), consuming sweet drinks, sugary snacks, or both [p-value = 0.02 (OR = 2.53), and p-value<0.001 (OR = 4.96), respectively], and visible plaque (p<0.001, OR = 3.41). Covariates associated with dmft scores included residing in rural regions (p = 0.02, IRR = 1.31), having both sugary snacks and sweet drinks (p = 0.02, IRR = 1.85) compared to those had none, and visible dental plaque (p<0.001, IRR = 2.06). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of dental caries in children is high in Iran. The increase of ECC prevalence and severity from toddlers to preschoolers emphasizes on the critical importance of early interventions in toddlers. Improving access to care for rural children is essential along with the need to change dietary and self-care behaviors through multilevel efforts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".