Impact of Orthodontic Treatment on the Incidence of Dental Caries in Adolescents: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment is a widely embraced intervention aimed at enhancing dental aesthetics and correcting malocclusions among adolescents. However, concerns persist regarding its potential impact on oral health, particularly on the development of dental caries. This study aimed to systematically investigate the relationship between orthodontic treatment and the incidence of new carious lesions among adolescents. METHODS: A prospective cohort design involving adolescents aged 12-18 years was employed. A total of 82 patients met the inclusion criteria. In addition, an age-matched control group of 82 participants who did not undergo orthodontic treatment was included. The study included both a treatment group undergoing orthodontic treatment (braces or aligners) and an age-matched control group that did not undergo any orthodontic intervention. Demographic characteristics, orthodontic treatment details, and oral hygiene practices were documented at baseline and throughout the study period. Dental examinations at six-month intervals post-treatment were conducted to track the incidence and progression of carious lesions. RESULTS: The demographic characteristics, baseline oral health status, orthodontic treatment details, and oral hygiene practices were comparable between the treatment and control groups. Post-orthodontic treatment assessment revealed a slightly higher incidence of new carious lesions in the treatment group (14.6%) than in the control group (9.8%), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.15). Dental examinations at six-month intervals demonstrated a gradual increase in caries incidence over time in both groups, with no substantial disparities observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive examination of the relationship between orthodontic treatment and the incidence of new carious lesions among adolescents. While a trend towards higher caries incidence in the treatment group was observed, the difference was not statistically significant. These findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge and emphasize the need for ongoing research to guide clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".