Depression is associated with periodontitis, dental caries and edentulism: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review aimed to investigate the association between depression and oral health outcomes, including periodontitis, gingivitis, dental caries, partial tooth loss, and edentulism (complete tooth loss). Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across seven major databases and two gray literature sources, including only studies with probabilistic samples, clinical assessment of oral outcomes, validated measuring of depression, and analyses statistically controlled for confounders. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (Newcastle-Ottawa scale), and evaluation of evidence certainty. Results: From 5865 unique records identified, 53 studies were included (44 cross-sectional and 9 cohort studies), with low risk of bias in 45 studies. Depression was significantly associated with the outcomes of periodontitis (OR = 1.30, 95%CI 1.07–1.57, I 2 = 56%), dental caries (PR = 1.32, 95%CI 1.12–1.52, I 2 = 0%), and edentulism (OR = 1.26, 95%CI 1.16–1.37, I 2 = 35%). Individuals with edentulism were more likely to have the outcome of depression compared to controls (OR = 1.37, 95%CI 1.15–1.64, I 2 = 69%). Meta-analyses demonstrated very low to low certainty of evidence. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis found significant associations between depression and oral health outcomes, such as periodontitis, dental caries and edentulism. These findings reinforce the interconnection between oral health and psychological factors.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".