Association of Helicobacter pylori as an Extragastric Reservoir in the Oral Cavity with Oral Diseases in Patients with and Without Gastritis—A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the association between Helicobacter pylori in the oral cavity as an extragastric reservoir and oral diseases in patients with or without gastritis. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted on the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Embase databases (2010–2025) using MeSH terms and keywords related to H. pylori, the oral cavity, and oral diseases. Inclusion criteria included observational studies, clinical trials, and case–control studies. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Of the 298 records initially identified, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. The presence of H. pylori in the oral cavity (plaque, saliva) was variably associated with gastritis, periodontitis, dental caries, and halitosis. Detection rates varied widely (0–100%), influenced by methodological differences (PCR, culture, antigen tests). Some studies reported an improvement in oral health after eradication therapy, while others found no significant association. The oral cavity may serve as a reservoir for H. pylori, with implications for oral and systemic health. Standardized diagnostic methods and integrated treatment approaches (combining gastric eradication and oral hygiene) are needed to clarify their role and optimize clinical outcomes. Further research is warranted to establish causal relationships and therapeutic 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 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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".