Effects of mouth breathing on facial skeletal development and malocclusion in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: Mouth breathing is closely related to the facial skeletal development and malocclusion. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of mouth breathing on facial skeletal development and malocclusion in children. METHODS: An electronic search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE and Sigle through February 23rd, 2020, was conducted. Methodological quality assessments of the selected articles were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Review Manager 5.3, was used to synthesize various parameters associated with the impact of mouth breathing on facial skeletal development and malocclusion. RESULTS: Following full-text evaluations for eligibility, 7 studies (387 mouth-breathing subjects and 433 nasal-breathing controls) were included in the final quantitative synthesis; they were all high-quality. The included indicators were SNA (p>0.050), ANS-PNS (p>0.050), 1.NB (p>0.050), MP-H (p>0.050), FMA (p>0.050), SNB (MD: -1.99, P <0.0001), ANB (MD: 0.95, P = 0.0005), SN-OP (MD: 3.20, P < 0.0001), SNGoGn (MD: 4.34, P < 0.0001), 1-NA (MD: 0.72, P = 0.004), 1. NA (MD: 1.98, P = 0.020), 1-NB (MD: 1.06, P < 0.0001), SPAS (MD: -5.23, P < 0.0001), PAS (MD: -2.11, P < 0.0001), and C3-H (MD: -1.34, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that mouth breathing can cause underdevelopment of the mandible. The mandible rotated backward and downward, and the occlusal plane was steep. However, there was little effect on the maxilla. In addition, mouth breathing presented a tendency of lip inclination of the upper and lower anterior teeth. Airway stenosis was common in mouth-breathing children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: crd-register@york.ac.uk; registration number CRD42019129198 KEYWORDS: Mouth breathing; Facial skeletal development; Children; Systematic review, Meta-analysis.
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 | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".