Dental Fear and Caries in 6- to 12-Year-Old Children: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between dental fear and dental caries in children aged 6 to 12 years in a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Systematic review search terms were selected according to medical subject headings (MeSH) or non-MeSH. An electronic search of studies published in English assessing the relationship between dental fear (children's fear survey schedule-dental subscale) and dental caries (DMFT or dmft index) was carried out of the Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Proquest databases up to March 2022. Of 5,759 articles retrieved initially, 16 were eligible for inclusion in the study, and 5 of these were included in the quantitative analysis. The quality of studies was evaluated based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Begg tests were employed to assess the publication bias. RESULTS: According to the meta-analysis, the results revealed no statistically significant difference in mean of DMFT score in low and high fear score groups, with a mean difference of 1.28 (95% confidence interval -0.132 to 2.693) (P = 0.076). A statistically significant difference was found in the mean dmft score for the low and high fear score groups, with a mean difference of 0.227 (95% confidence interval 0.058 to 0.395) (P = 0.008). The mean dmft was significantly higher in the high fear score group. CONCLUSION: Dental fear has a significant relationship with caries in primary teeth, but not in permanent teeth.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".