Is caries prevalence site-specific in cleft lip and palate patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous systematic reviews indicate that there is an increased prevalence of caries in cleft patients in comparison to their healthy control group. To date, the prevalence of caries between unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) has not been quantitatively evaluated. This review aims to include published studies that examined caries prevalence in patients with UCLP and BCLP to find out whether a quantitative difference exists in caries experience among them. Materials and Methods: Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost databases were searched from inception to November 2021. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO registration no. CRD2021292425. Prevalence-based studies that evaluated caries experience using the decayed-missing-filled teeth (DMFT) index in the permanent dentition or dmft in case of primary dentition in patients with UCLP or BCLP were included in the analysis with the outcome given in mean and standard deviation. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effect model through a forest plot. An adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cross-sectional studies was modified to assess the quality of included studies. Results: = 0.03, respectively. Forest plot values were obtained for permanent dentition (DMFT) and primary dentition (dmft), 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-0.11) and 0.36 (95% CI: 0.69-0.03), respectively. The result of the meta-analysis indicates that patients with BCLP have higher caries prevalence. Conclusion: The outcome of the study indicates a higher occurrence of caries in patients with BCLP than UCLP in both permanent and primary dentition.
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 | 0.024 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.054 |
| 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".