Association between periodontitis and oral health-related quality of life: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing the perception of individuals in relation to their oral health allows for a multidimensional and, therefore, more comprehensive analysis of the impact of different oral diseases and conditions, such as periodontitis, on quality of life. The aim of this study is to systematically review the association between periodontitis and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in adult individuals. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus databases up to September 2020. Additional studies were identified through grey literature and by manual search. Only observational studies with clinical periodontal examination, definition of periodontitis and a validated instrument for measuring OHRQoL were included. The NewCastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analyses of standardized mean differences (SMD) and mean differences (MD) were performed. Sixty studies comprising a total of 29,924 individuals were included in the review and 37 studies were included in the meta-analyses. The meta-analyses (OHIP-14/49 and OIDP, SMD 1.24, 95%CI: 0.45 to 2.04; GOHAI-ADD and OHQoL-UK, SMD -0.71, 95% CI: -1.12- to -0.29) as well as the pooled estimates with OHIP-14 ([log] OR 1.84, 95% CI: 1.42 to 2.38) showed that periodontitis is associated with impaired OHRQoL. Individuals with periodontitis were 84% more likely to report a negative impact on OHRQoL. The subgroup results (OHIP-14, MD 4.42, 95% CI: 3.00 to 5.84) showed that the study design, composition of the sample, economic classification of the country, parameters used to define periodontitis and type of comparison group influenced the combined estimates. The comparison group seemed to explain approximately 20% of the heterogeneity among studies. A dose-response gradient was found between greater periodontal disease severity and poorer OHRQoL. Our findings suggest that periodontitis is associated with impaired of OHRQoL. Additional high-quality studies are recommended to further explore this association.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".