Breastfeeding and Oral Health: Evidence and Methodological Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breastfeeding is a powerful health-promoting behavior. A 2016 Lancet global collaboration to review the health implications of breastfeeding was among the first to consider oral health outcomes. While a role was suggested for breastfeeding in preventing malocclusion, caries was the only included disease condition unfavorably associated with breastfeeding. The present critical review examines the evidence connecting breastfeeding practices to these outcomes and discusses the methodological challenges inherent in reaching causal conclusions. Published systematic reviews show some evidence of a protective effect of breastfeeding against primary dentition malocclusion but no supportive evidence for mixed dentition and permanent dentition malocclusions. Regarding caries, well-conducted studies report a benefit with breastfeeding up to 12 mo but a positive association between caries and breastfeeding of longer duration, at times that vary between 12 and 24 mo, as well as nocturnal feeding. Future studies would be methodologically stronger if focused on specific malocclusion traits that are plausibly associated with sucking movements rather than using general malocclusion indices. Studies should use detailed and consistent terminology for breastfeeding definition, including frequency, intensity, and timing. Analytical studies should be carried out to distinguish between confounders (e.g., prematurity) and mediators (e.g., use of pacifier). Regarding a link to caries, standard terminology for exposures (e.g., nocturnal feeding) is recommended. Statistical analyses must account for known confounding factors (e.g., socioeconomic conditions) but avoid inappropriate adjustment for variables on a causal path between exposure and outcome or for variables not associated with breastfeeding (e.g., tooth brushing), as can be guided using tools such as direct acyclic graphs. For dental practice, the potential caries risk of long-duration breastfeeding should be part of individual patient counseling that incorporates patient values and circumstances. Given the unquestioned overall health benefits of breastfeeding, the dental community should support World Health Organization guidelines that encourage and promote breastfeeding.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.402 | 0.716 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".