ArticleInternational journal of circumpolar health2025
A retrospective registry study comparing a portable school-based model and a standard clinic-based model.
Article in International journal of circumpolar health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared a school-based portable and a clinic-based standard model for examining the oral health of school-age children in Finland. Two socioeconomically comparable regions were examined to discover the differences between these models for providing oral health examinations for primary school-age children in Finland. A retrospective registry study using patient records from the electronic health system (2020-2023) was conducted in two socioeconomically comparable regions: Nokia (portable model, n=481) and Tampere (standard model, n=538). The analysed variables included the number of visits, the longest gap between visits, diagnoses, oral health care procedures and recall intervals. The standard model exhibited significantly longer gaps between visits (median 25 vs. 11 months, p<0.001) and fewer individualised recall intervals (11.7% vs. 24.9%, p<0.001). Recall intervals were longer in the standard model (17 vs. 6 months, p<0.001). The standard model also showed higher prevalence of caries (21.1% vs. 11.7%, p<0.005), restorative treatments (41.3% vs. 33.1%, p<0.001) and tooth extractions (35.5% vs. 22.4%, p=0.005). The portable model had a higher proportion of children who received only a dentist's examination (35% vs. 9.6%, p<0.001) compared to hygienist-led examinations. Organisational factors play a more significant role than mere geographical accessibility in ensuring effective oral health care in Finland.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.