Influence of Complete Denture Use on Respiratory Capacity: A Systematic Review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM AND OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether the use of complete dentures has an influence on the respiratory capacity, assessed by the spirometry examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021255224). The PICO question (population/exposure/comparison/outcome) was "Does the use of complete dentures influence the respiratory capacity of a toothless subject?" A search strategy was adapted for the PubMed/MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, OpenGrey, Lilacs, Scopus, and Embase databases. Inclusion criteria were prospective and retrospective studies. The new castle ottawa (NOS) scale and the Methodological Index for Non-randomized studies were selected to assess the quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Four studies were selected, totalizing the evaluation of 242 participants, aged ranging from 40 to 73 years old. Two studies concluded that the use of complete dentures can negatively affect the respiratory capacity. One study stated that it did not interfere regardless of its use during spirometric measurements, and the other reported that dental prosthesis was required in cases of evaluation of the extrathoracic airways. CONCLUSION: The use of complete dentures did not represent relevant changes from the reference values for pulmonary function in the spirometry test. Considering the results of this review, it is not yet possible to establish a clinical protocol for the use of complete dentures during the test. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Oral rehabilitation with conventional complete dentures is widely used for the treatment of edentulism, especially in elderly patients. In addition, with aging, many complex changes in immunity and respiratory function contribute to the increase in the development of lung diseases. Therefore, it is important to establish a guidance regarding the use or not of the removable dental prostheses in the respiratory capacity test through spirometry examination.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".