Sleep-Disordered Breathing: The Dentists’ Role – A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Although dentists have an important role related to sleep disorders, there is a concern about how far dentists can go when screening or treating these patients.The objective of this systematic review is to present guidelines, recommendations, and studies designed with the intention to describe and guide the role of dentists in sleep-disordered breathing (SDB)-related issues.1 Methods: The eligibility criteria were guidelines, protocols, and recommendations focused on determining the role of dentists in the sleep disorders topic.The search was conducted through the databases Cochrane, EMBASE, Medline, LILACS, PubMed, and Web of Science.This systematic review was reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA).1 Results: Overall, a total of 1,432 studies were found in the 6 databases searched.After removing duplicates, the studies were evaluated by title and abstract.In the second phase, 231 studies were evaluated by reading their full text.Twenty-two studies matched the inclusion criteria.Conclusions: Through this systematic review it is possible to conclude that the guidelines describe the role of dentists in screening patients for SDB/obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) as follows: refer the patients suspected of SDB/OSA to sleep physicians; apply, manage, and follow up the use of oral appliances.Clinical significance: All dentists should screen for SDB/OSA; however, only well-trained dentists with good knowledge of dental sleep medicine should be part of the multidisciplinary team to treat patients with SBD/OSA.
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 | 0.026 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".