Malocclusion in children and adolescents with Down syndrome: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown a high prevalence of malocclusion in people with Down syndrome (DS) compared to individuals without DS, but no systematic review to summarize the evidence on this topic has been performed thus far. AIM: To evaluate whether children/adolescents with DS are more affected by malocclusion than those without DS. DESIGN: A search was performed in seven electronic databases. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The strength of the evidence from the selected studies was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: Eleven publications were included in the systematic review and eight were meta-analysed. The meta-analysis showed that malocclusion was more prevalent in children/adolescents with DS for Angle Class III (risk difference [RD] = 0.40; confidence interval [CI] = 0.33, 0.46), posterior crossbite (risk ratio [RR] = 3.09; CI = 2.02, 4.73), anterior crossbite (RR = 2.18; CI = 1.41, 3.39), and anterior open bite (RD = 0.21; CI = 0.06, 0.36). CONCLUSION: The occurrence of malocclusion was higher in children/adolescents with DS compared to individuals without the syndrome. The strength of the evidence of the studies analysed, however, was considered moderate and low.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".