Dental Caries in Children and Its Relationship with Parenting Styles: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It can be affirmed that the parenting style of parents has an impact on the health-related behaviors of their children; the environment that parents create for their children can have an impact on both their habits and their oral health, and on the incidence of dental caries in children. The purpose of this study was to analyze the association between parenting style and childhood dental caries. METHODS: Two researchers independently searched the English literature published up to May 2024 in four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus y Cochrane Library). The risk of bias was evaluated using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024573447). RESULTS: Of the 130 studies identified, nine of them, with a total of 4250 participants, met our inclusion criteria. The evidence on the relationship between parenting styles and dental caries is varied. Of the studies reviewed, three showed a significant association between both factors, while four found no correlation, and two reported no significant differences in relation to parenting styles and the occurrence of dental caries. CONCLUSIONS: This discrepancy emphasizes the need for further research. Parenting styles impact child dental behavior on a global level, highlighting the relevance of recognizing these approaches in a dental context, given that parents have a fundamental role in guiding their children's behaviors.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".