Effectiveness of the open bite treatment in growing children and adolescents. A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The extensive literature concerning the early treatment of anterior open bite (AOB) is still controversial and covers a wide variety of therapeutic approaches. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive review evaluating the effectiveness of the orthodontic correction of AOB in growing individuals. SEARCH METHODS: Search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Scielo, and Lilacs databases. Trials registries were consulted for ongoing trials, and grey literature was also contemplated. SELECTION CRITERIA: Selection process was performed to include controlled trials enrolling growing subjects who underwent orthodontic treatment to correct AOB and/or hyperdivergent facial pattern. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were grouped and analysed descriptively. Qualitative appraisal was performed according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and MINORS tool for non-RCTs. RESULTS: The 22 studies included in this review mostly considered mixed dentition subjects, and there was a considerable variation regarding therapeutic approaches. Because of poor-quality and/or insufficient evidence, consistent results were not found. However, some useful clinical inferences and suggestions for future studies were provided for each therapeutic modality considered here. CONCLUSIONS: Additional efforts must still be directed to perform, whenever possible, RCTs; or to conduct prospective controlled trials with adequate sample sizes, consecutively assembled subjects, with the comparison of contemporary and equivalent groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".