Breastfeeding, bottle feeding and risk of malocclusion in mixed and permanent dentitions: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to search for scientific evidence concerning the association between breastfeeding and bottle feeding and risk of malocclusion in mixed and permanent dentitions. An electronic search was performed in eight databases up to February 2015. Additionally, a gray literature search and hand searches of the reference lists of the selected studies were also carried out. There were no restrictions on language or on year of publication. The methodology of the included articles was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Out of the 817 identified citations, six studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. One study showed that children with mixed and permanent dentitions breastfed for more than 6 months presented greater mean protrusion of mandibular incisors and inclination of maxillary incisors compared with those breastfed for less than 6 months or those who were bottle-fed (p < 0.05). One study revealed that breastfeeding and bruxism were associated with Class II [OR = 3.14 (1.28 - 7.66)] and Class III [OR = 2.78 (1.21 - 6.36)] malocclusion in children with permanent dentition, while another study showed that an increase in breastfeeding duration was associated with a lower risk of malocclusion in children with both mixed and permanent dentitions (p < 0.001). Three studies did not report any significant association. Risk of bias was high in most selected articles. These findings do not support an association between breastfeeding and bottle feeding and the occurrence of malocclusion in mixed and permanent dentitions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".