Comprehensive assessment of periodontal health in cerebral palsy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Cerebral palsy (CP) is the term for a set of neurological disorders resulting from brain damage that impairs motor function. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to determine whether individuals with CP are at a greater risk of negative periodontal health outcomes compared to those without CP. Methods This study followed the recommendations of the MOOSE guidelines. Electronic searches were conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid, Embase, and PsycInfo databases. Observational studies assessing periodontal outcomes in individuals with CP were included. Risk of bias was appraised using the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Meta‐analyses were conducted and the results were presented using standardized mean differences (SMD), odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The strength of the evidence was also assessed. Results A total of 316 records were retrieved from the electronic databases, 17 of which were included in the qualitative synthesis. Meta‐analyses revealed significantly higher scores in individuals with CP compared to those without CP for the oral hygiene index (SMD = 0.47 [95% CI: 0.17–0.78, I2 = 80%), gingival index (SMD = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.39–1.11], I2 = 79%), plaque index (SMD = 0.70 [95% CI: 0.07–1.33], I2 = 93%), and calculus index (SMD = 0.98 [95% CI: 0.76–1.20], I2 = 0%). However, no significant difference was found between groups for the prevalence of gingivitis (OR = 1.27 [95% CI: 0.28–5.66], I2 = 93%). The risk of bias for the outcome assessment and statistical tests was low. The strength of the evidence was deemed very low. Conclusion Individuals with CP may experience more significant negative periodontal health outcomes compared to those without CP.
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 | 0.020 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".