Community-Based Periodontal Disease Prevention Programs: A Schematic Assessment and Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness and Future Directions under Community Medicine and Dentistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The prevalence of periodontal disease in the general population is still an important issue in public health, particularly among groups with low access to preventive treatments. The current meta-analysis was intended to determine the efficacy of community-based periodontal disease prevention programmes in enhancing clinical periodontal outcomes, namely, Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Index (GI), Bleeding on probing (BOP), and Pocket probing depth (PPD). Methods: The literature was searched using PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (2012-2025). Community-based interventions that targeted the aspects of education, behavioral change, or preventative care were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle Ottawa for Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Observational studies, respectively. The certainty of evidence was evaluated with the GRADE criteria. Meta-analyses were completed based on a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was evaluated by means of I2 statistics. Results: Twelve studies were enrolled in this study. In pooled analysis, there was a significant improvement in Plaque Index (SMD = -1.12; 95% CI: -1.59 to -0.64) and Gingival Index (SMD = -0.89; 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.43) after community-based interventions. In the case of Bleeding on Probing, the effect was not significant (SMD = 0.96; 95% CI: -1.66 to 3.59), whereas PPD displayed significant improvement (SMD = -0.62; 95% CI: -1.09 to -0.14). Discussion: Periodontal programs based on communities are practical in lowering PI, GI, and PPD. In spite of the uneven results of BOP, the evidence as a whole favors the inclusion of such programs as components of oral health strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".