Caregiver’s oral health status as a risk factor for dental caries in children: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between caregiver's oral health status and children's caries by way of a systematic review. RESEARCH DESIGN: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews was used to conduct this review and the PRISMA-P 2015 statement as a reporting guideline. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were established based on prescribed guidelines. PubMed, Cinahl, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched up to September 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment. Frequency distribution of results was calculated for preschool children and children. RESULTS: All 10 studies eligible for inclusion in the final review were assessed as a low risk of bias. In all studies, the mother was reported as the primary caregiver. A significant association between oral health of caregivers and their children was found for dental caries in seven of the 10 included studies; four for preschoolers and two for children in the deciduous dentition, and one for children in the permanent dentition. CONCLUSIONS: This review emphasises the need for early intervention programs in addressing dental caries in children at the family-level, with particular focus on maternal oral health. These programmes should emphasise the critical role of caregivers and be tailored to identify and support high-risk households.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".