Quantitative evaluation of the orofacial morphology: Anthropometric measurements in healthy and mouth-breathing children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The anthropometric orofacial measurements of mouth-breathing children were compared to those of children with no history of speech-language disorders, according to age. METHODS: 100 children participated, both males and females, with ages ranging from 7 to 11 years and 11 months, leukoderm, in mixed dentition period, with a mouth-breathing diagnosis. The control group was comprised of 254 children, of both sexes, with ages ranging from 7 to 11 years and 11 months, leukoderm, in mixed dentition period, with no history of speech-language disorders. The control group did not demonstrate any mouth-breathing. The children were submitted to anthropometric assessment and the orofacial measurements obtained were upper lip, lower lip, philtrum, upper face, middle face, lower face, and sides of the face. The instrument used was the electronic digital sliding caliper Starrett Series 727. There was statistically significant difference between the majority of the orofacial measurements of mouth-breathing children and the measurements of children with no history of speech-language disorders. Some orofacial measurements were different in the studied populations. The possibility of comparing orofacial measurements of children with and without mouth-breathing behavior allows the clinician to determine normal and altered structures of the orofacial morphology. The main advantages of the anthropometry are its noninvasive nature, its technological simplicity, low cost and objective analysis. The anthropometric procedures also have clinical applications in myofunctional assessment and therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".