Anamnestic risk factors for erosive tooth wear: Systematic review, mapping, and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Erosive tooth wear is a multifactorial condition. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify key risk factors for erosive tooth wear in permanent dentition. Observational studies reporting anamnestic risk factors for erosive tooth wear. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cross-sectional studies. Risk factors were visually presented in a heatmap, and where possible, random-effects meta-analyses were performed for the odds ratios (ORs) of risk factors. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) and manual searches in February 2023. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD4202339776). A total of 87 publications reporting on 71 studies were included in the systematic review. The studies examined a variety of anamnestic risk factors (n=80) that were categorized into ten domains (socio-demographics, socio-economics, general health, oral diseases, medication, oral hygiene, food, beverages, dietary habits and leisure-related risk factors). Meta-analyses revealed significant associations between erosive tooth wear and male gender (padj.<0.001; OR=1.30, 95% CI: 1.16-1.44), regurgitation (padj.=0.033; OR=2.27, 95% CI: 1.41-3.65), digestive disorders (padj.<0.001; OR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.48-2.21), consumption of acidic foods (padj.=0.033; OR=2.40, 95% CI: 1.44-4.00), seasoning sauces (padj.=0.003; OR=1.28, 95% CI: 1.13-1.44), nutritional supplements (padj.=0.019; OR=1.73, 95% CI: 1.28-2.35), and carbonated drinks (padj.=0.019; OR=1.43, 95% CI: 1.17-1.75). Most included studies exhibited low bias risk. Observational studies investigated a variety of anamnestic risk factors for erosive tooth wear. Future studies should employ validated questionnaires, particularly considering the most important risk factors. Erosive tooth wear is a prevalent condition. Clinicians should concentrate primarily on symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease and dietary factors when screening patients at risk for erosive tooth wear.
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 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".