Malocclusion in individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) are more affected by malocclusion than individuals without OI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Searches in PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs and gray literature were performed. Data extraction was conducted by two researchers. Risk of bias assessment employing the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and meta-analysis were conducted. Results were provided with mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Strength of evidence was determined. RESULTS: Six cross-sectional studies were included. In comparison with individuals without OI, the group with OI had 19.69-fold greater chance of exhibiting Angle Class III malocclusion (OR = 19.69, CI: 9.00-43.09) and presenting anterior crossbite greater (MD = 6.08, CI: 2.40-9.77). Individuals without OI had a significantly greater ANB angle (MD = 3.88, CI: 1.15-6.61) and SNA angle (MD = 2.11, CI: 0.24-3.98) in comparison with those with OI. No difference between groups was found for SNB (MD = -0.50, CI: -2.21 to 1.21) and open bite (MD = 0.98, CI: -0.29 to 2.25). Most studies included had moderate methodological quality. Strength of evidence was low or very low. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of Angle Class III malocclusion and anterior crossbite was greater among individuals with OI compared to those without OI. These findings can assist stakeholders about the occlusal abnormalities affecting OI individuals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".