Impact of fluorosis on the oral health-related quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective.The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the literature to assess the effect of fluorosis on the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL). Materials and methods. Included studies were epidemiological investigations, clinical trials, or human studies that directly compared the impact on OHRQoL between individuals with fluorosis and those without, utilizing valid OHRQoL assessment tools. The searches were conducted up to September 2023 in databases, including PubMed, Scielo, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Virtual Health Library. Additionally, gray literature sources such as Google Scholar, OpenGrey, Ibict/BDTD, and ProQuest were searched. Reference lists were also manually reviewed for potential eligible studies. The risk of bias in cohort studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), while its modified version was employed for cross-sectional studies. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model in R Statistical Software with a significance level of p<0.05. Results.Out of the 16 included studies, four were suitable for meta-analysis. In total, 16,314 participants, aged 8 to 18, were assessed across the studies. The analysis of the CPQ 8-10 instrument indicated no significant impact (p-value = 0.14). For the CPQ 11-14 the quantitative analysis suggested no significant impact on OHRQoL (p-value = 0.51). Limitations in the included studies primarily pertained to cross-sectional designs, with significant issues such as the absence of sample size calculations, lack of non-response rate reporting, limited consideration of confounding factors, and substantial heterogeneity stemming from diverse diagnostic methods and assessment tools. Conclusion.The overall findings indicated that mild dental fluorosis did not adversely affect the OHRQoL of the studied populations. Clinical relevance. Dental caries preventive fluoridated measures might be indicated even if there would be a risk for mild dental fluorosis as the fluoridated public water. Trial registration. This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under number: CRD42020186552.
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 | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".