The association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and dental development in offspring: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the effect of maternal smoking during pregnancy (MSDP) on the development of dental conditions in human offspring, as presented in current literature. METHODS: Observational studies from six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and Maternity and Infant Care (MIC)) were systematically searched in July 2024. Articles were screened based on their investigation of the effect of MSDP on the development of dental conditions in offspring. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), while the quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: A total of 17 articles were included in this review, focusing on the primary dental developmental outcomes: molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH), enamel defects (other than MIH), missing teeth, dental eruption, and short root anomaly. Due to high levels of heterogeneity among the studies, meta-analysis was not performed. The majority of studies demonstrated good methodological quality (n = 10), with three assessed as fair and four as poor. The quality of evidence was categorised, with three outcomes receiving a low quality of evidence classification, and tooth eruption and short root anomaly being classed as very low quality. Statistically significant associations between MSDP and each dental outcome had varied results across studies. Most studies concluded an association between MSDP and conditions such as enamel defects (other than MIH), missing teeth, and short root anomaly. Some studies found associations with MIH, while the majority found no link between MSDP and tooth eruption in offspring. CONCLUSION: This review suggests a potential association between MSDP and dental development conditions in offspring. However, due to the low quality of evidence and inconsistencies in findings across observational studies, a definitive association cannot be drawn. Further, novel and high-quality research is needed to understand the impact MSDP on dental development in offspring.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".