MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393254912 · doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104962

Anamnestic risk factors for erosive tooth wear: Systematic review, mapping, and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4393254912 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Felix Marschner, Philipp Kanzow, Annette Wiegand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dentistry · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Erosion and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisDentistryMedicineOrthodonticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of DentistrySame topicDental Erosion and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207