Association between socioeconomic status and traumatic dental injury in permanent teeth: A systematic review with meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review observational studies assessing the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and traumatic dental injuries (TDI) in permanent dentition. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS, CINAHL, COCHANE Library and ScoINDEX databases for articles published up to February 2023. Two independent reviewers performed the search and critical appraisal of the studies. The inclusion criteria were observational studies that evaluated the association between individual-level socioeconomic indicators and TDI (clinically examined) in permanent teeth. Quality assessment of included articles was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Global meta-analysis was performed with all studies and different subgroup analysis based on socioeconomic indicators (household income, educational level or any other indicator), age (children, early adolescents, late adolescents or young adults) and economic classification of the country (high, upper-middle or lower-middle). A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled prevalence ratios (PR) and respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each study. RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 11 315 publications. According to eligibility criteria, 17 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Individuals with low SES were 17% more likely to have TDI (PR 1.17; 95% CI 1.05-1.30). The subgroup analysis also revealed that the indicator (household income, PR 1.16; 95% CI 1.00-1.34) and the economic classification of the country (upper-middle, PR 1.19; 95% CI 1.07-1.33) influenced the association of SES with TDI occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with lower SES were more likely to present with TDI in permanent dentition than those with higher SES.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".