Oral health in patients with cleft lip and palate: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of periodontal and dental disease and oral microbiota (part 1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Orofacial cleft impacts jawbone and dental development and function, often with consequences for oral health. The first in this two-part systematic review of the literature on oral health in persons with cleft lip and/or palate focuses on periodontal parameters and composition of oral bacterial flora, while the second analyzes data on dental caries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched for studies that compared periodontal parameters, caries index, and microbiota composition between persons with cleft lip and/or palate and healthy controls. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist were applied to evaluate study quality. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies underwent systematic review, 18 of which entered meta-analysis. Twenty studies included a control group, while four included only persons with orofacial cleft. The first part (18 studies) compared periodontal parameters and oral microbiota. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of periodontal parameters (plaque index, gingival index, bleeding index, probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level) revealed an association between orofacial cleft and greater risk for poor oral health and periodontal disease. Good oral health relies on correct home oral hygiene and regular visits to the dentist starting at an early age.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".