Prevalence of dentofacial injuries among combat sports practitioners: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background/Aim Combat sports might result in injuries to the face and teeth. However, it is unclear how often they occur and which sports presents the highest rates. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of dentofacial injuries in combat sports participants. Material and Methods A systematic review was performed. Six main electronic databases and three grey literature databases were searched. Studies were blindly selected by two reviewers based on pre‐defined eligibility criteria. Studies that evaluated the prevalence of dentofacial injuries (teeth, alveolar bone, jaw, lips, and/or cheekbones) among combat sports participants were considered eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. The software r statistics version was used to perform all meta‐analyses. Cumulative evidence of the included articles was evaluated using GRADE criteria (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Results From 1104 articles found on all databases, 27 were finally included. Eighteen studies were judged at low, seven at moderate, and two at high risk of bias. The following sports were investigated: boxing, capoeira, fencing, jiu‐jitsu, judo, karate, kendo, kickboxing, kung fu, muay thai, sumo, taekwondo, wrestling, and wushu. Results from the meta‐analysis suggested a dental pooled prevalence of 25.2% (12.3%‐40.8%, i 2 = 100%) and dentofacial pooled prevalence of 30.3 (18.1%‐44.1%, i 2 = 100%). Considering the sports' categories individually, jiu‐jitsu had the highest pooled prevalence of dentofacial injuries (52.9% [37.9%‐67.8%, i 2 = 92%]), while judo was the sport with the lowest pooled prevalence (25.0% [7.6%‐48.2%, i 2 = 98%]). Among Panamerican sports, boxing had the highest prevalence of dental injuries (73.7% [58.7%‐86.3%, i 2 = 0%]). For dentofacial injuries, the GRADE criteria were considered low. Conclusions Overall pooled prevalence of dentofacial injuries in combat sports was approximately 30%. Raising awareness regarding the frequency of these injuries might encourage the use of protective devices and reduce complications related to these incidents.
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 | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".