MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767636631 · doi:10.1177/0022034517738925

Breastfeeding and Oral Health: Evidence and Methodological Challenges

2017· review· en· W2767636631 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Glazer Peres, Benjamin W. Chaffee, Carlos Alberto Feldens, Carlos Flores‐Mir, Paula Moynihan, A J Rugg-Gunn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersInternational Association for Dental Research
KeywordsBreastfeedingPacifierMalocclusionMedicineConfoundingSocioeconomic statusDentistryPediatricsEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.861
GPT teacher head0.673
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations114
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental ResearchSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207