Systematic review and meta‐analysis on prevalence and anamnestic risk factors for erosive tooth wear in the primary dentition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Erosive tooth wear is a multifactorial and common condition in children. Aim This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to determine the prevalence and key risk factors for erosive tooth wear in the primary dentition of children up to 7 years of age. Design Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched in February 2023 for observational studies reporting prevalence and anamnestic risk factors. Additionally, a manual hand search was performed. Meta‐analyses were conducted for the prevalence and odds ratios of identified risk factors. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale modified for cross‐sectional studies. Results A total of 26 sources, reporting on 23 studies, were included in the systematic review. The overall estimated prevalence of children with erosive tooth wear in the primary dentition amounted to 35.6% (95% CI: 24.8–48.1). Anamnestic factors were structured into domains. Meta‐analyses revealed gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD; p adj. = .008; OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.37–2.87), consumption of acidic food ( p adj. < .001; OR = 5.14, 95% CI: 3.56–7.42) and acidic drinks ( p adj. < .001; OR = 6.90, 95% CI: 4.64–10.25), holding beverages in the mouth while drinking ( p adj. = .035; OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.26–2.63), and snacking regularly ( p adj. = .041; OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18–2.10) to be significantly associated with erosive tooth wear. Conclusion Future research should use standardized questionnaires to assess erosive tooth wear and its underlying risk factors (PROSPERO: CRD4202339776).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".