Association Between Chromogenic Black Stain and Dental Caries in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the association between chromogenic black stain and dental caries in children, and to estimate the pooled prevalence of BS in pediatric populations. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to February 2025. Eligible studies included observational studies, clinical trials, and systematic reviews on BS and dental caries in children ≤15 years. Data extraction and quality assessment (Newcastle–Ottawa Scale) were performed independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated pooled odds ratios for caries risk and BS prevalence. Results: Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria. Twelve reported an inverse association between BS and caries, one showed no significant relationship, and one was inconclusive. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis, which indicated that children with BS had significantly lower odds of caries (pooled OR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.36–0.78). The pooled prevalence of BS was 9.4% (95% CI: 6.6–12.2%), with substantial heterogeneity among studies. Conclusions: Black stain in children may be associated with a lower risk of dental caries, although this finding should be interpreted with caution given the limited number of studies and substantial heterogeneity.
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 | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".