Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Periodontal Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between periodontal disease and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). Materials and Methods: Electronic search using PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, and Cochrane library was carried out for randomized controlled trials, cohort, case-control, longitudinal and epidemiological studies on humans published from January 2009 until September 2020. The participants had to be male and female adults who were diagnosed with OSAS either by overnight polysomnography (carried out at a sleep laboratory or at home) or by a home sleep testing monitor (Apnea Risk Evaluation System). Methodological quality assessment was carried out using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) for case-control studies while an adapted form of NOS was used for cross-sectional studies. Results: Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria of our review, 5 were case-control studies, and 5 cross-sectional. Sample size ranged from 50 to 29,284 subjects, for a total of 43,122 subjects, 56% of them were male, their age ranged from 18 to 85 years old. The heterogeneity among the studies regarding the classification of periodontal disease, and the different methods for OSAS severity assessment, complicated the comparison among the studies. Conclusions: There is low evidence of a possible association between OSAS and periodontitis. The pathophysiological mechanism, cause-effect, or dose-response relationship are still unclear. Further studies are needed and should use a precise classification of OSAS subjects, while the new classification of periodontitis from the World Workshop of Chicago 2017 should be used for the periodontal assessment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".