Traumatic dental injuries in permanent teeth among Arab children: prevalence, and associated risk factors—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is no clear literature present till date assessing the prevalence of traumatic dental injuries and associated factors in children living in Arab countries. The purpose of this study was to systematically assess the prevalence, trends, and potential risk factors of traumatic dental injury (TDI) in permanent teeth among children and adolescents in Arab countries. Methods: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The researchers conducted a comprehensive literature search in various databases, including PubMed, Cochrane library of systematic reviews, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Google Scholar, and gray literature sources such as MDS dissertations and manuscripts. To analyze the collected data, the researchers used a random effects model for conducting meta-analyses. Pooled estimates of prevalence and odds ratios were derived, along with 95% confidence intervals (CI), to provide a measure of statistical precision and variability in the findings. For the studies that were considered, trend analysis was done. The risk of bias assessment of included studies was done using Newcastle-Ottawa tool for cross-sectional studies. Results: A total of 545 articles were identified, of which 23 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment of included studies showed that twenty studies were of high quality and three studies showed low quality. The frequency of dental trauma in Arab children was 26% (95% CI [10-43]). Children with overjet of more than 3.5 mm were shown to be 1.78 times more likely to have dental injury than children with normal overjet (pooled odds ratio 1.78; 95% CI [1.17-2.70]). Males had a 2.06 times odds of TDI compared to females. Children with insufficient lip coverage had an odds ratio of 2.57, indicating a higher likelihood of oral injuries compared to those with appropriate lip coverage. Conclusion: . Future population-based analytical research should concentrate on documenting the incidence and/or prevalence of TDI among marginalized communities in order to better understand the primary causes of TDI.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".