ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
The association between oral risk assessment and obstetric and newborn outcomes.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Periodontal disease in pregnancy is a known risk factor for adverse obstetric and offspring outcomes, including preeclampsia and preterm birth. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends screening all pregnant patients on their first obstetric visit with a simple, self-administered, three-question oral risk assessment survey. Yet, no studies have evaluated whether a positive screen on this oral risk assessment is associated with adverse obstetric or newborn outcomes. Objective: We sought to assess the relationship between a positive overall oral risk assessment and preterm birth, preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, and newborn birthweight. Study design: We screened pregnant individuals at a university-based prenatal clinic using the three-question ACOG-recommended oral risk assessment survey. We performed unadjusted and adjusted linear and logistic regression models to evaluate associations between screening questions and pregnancy/offspring outcomes. Results: Among 1242 screened pregnant patients, 50.3% (625 patients) had an overall positive screen with 21.7% (269), 43.1% (535), and 13.6% (169) screening positive on questions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Patients who had an overall positive screen for heightened risk for oral disease had significantly increased odds of preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 2.16), gestational hypertension (aOR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.10, 2.65), and gestational diabetes (aOR: 1.79, 95% CI 1.20, 2.67). Those with symptomatic oral disease (question 1) had a significantly increased odds of preeclampsia (aOR: 1.77, 95% CI 1.04, 2.99). Those who sought help finding a dentist (question 3) had significantly reduced odds of gestational hypertension (aOR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.97) and gave birth to infants with a significantly higher birthweight (+177.9 g; 95% CI: +40.3 g, +315.5 g). Conclusions: Symptomatic oral disease (question 1) is associated with adverse health outcomes. Surprisingly, seeking help in accessing dental care (affirmative response to question 3) is associated with improved outcomes. The differing associations highlight the importance of asking each question, and future research is needed to determine potential biological pathways linking the survey responses with adverse obstetric outcomes.
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.