MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117646143 · doi:10.1111/ger.70040

Older Adults' Social Relationships and Dental Visits: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2025· article· en· W7117646143 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eiko Yoshida‐Kohno, FUEKI Kenji, Jun Aida

Bibliographic record

VenueGerodontology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsSocial relationshipProtocol (science)MEDLINEInterpersonal relationshipOlder peopleSocial support

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Weak social relationships are associated with high rates of tooth loss in older adults. To explore the mechanisms connecting social relationships and tooth loss, we systematically assessed the current evidence for the association between social relationships and dental care utilisation in this population. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search of five electronic databases for relevant studies published between 1966 and 2024. We included observational studies assessing the structural, functional and/or both combined components of social relationships as exposures and dental care utilisation as outcomes in adults aged 60+. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. To assess whether weak social relationships are associated with low dental care utilisation, an average odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were generated using a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in the review, and 12 (35,097 participants) in the meta-analysis. The average OR was 0.81 (0.69, 0.94), indicating a 19% lower probability of utilising dental care for those with weaker social relationships. CONCLUSION: This review suggests that weak social relationships are a significant factor associated with low dental care utilisation among older adults, highlighting a potential for public health interventions that address social isolation and loneliness. To guide future interventions, a better understanding of the specific components and time-dependency of this association is needed (PROSPERO [CRD42023417845]). PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023417845).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerodontologySame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207