A Comparative Evaluation of Malocclusion and Associated Risk Factors in Patients Suffering with Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An association of malocclusion as potent risk factor to temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) has been under question since ages. A systematic review and meta-analysis of case–control and cohort studies was performed following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses)guidelines to compare the prevalence of TMDs in subjects with malocclusion to patients with normocclusion. The study was registered on the PROSPERO database (identifier: CRD42022315863). An elaborate electronic database (PubMed, DOAJ, and Google Scholar) and manual search resulted in 325 articles, among which 7 and 3 articles were shortlisted for qualitative and quantitative review, respectively, for articles published from January 2000 until December 2021. A total of 4,183 participants were included in this review with age range of 5 to 75 years. New–Castle Ottawa tool was employed for quality assessment, while I 2 statistical value for meta-analysis was interpreted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Fixed effect model was applied as, I 2 = 0. Pooled odds ratio with 95% confidence interval for all three studies was 14.64 [4.43, 48.36] suggesting that TMDs were 14.64 times more associated in patients with malocclusion (cases) than patients without malocclusion (controls). Within the limitations and fair quality of evidence of the current review and analysis, TMDs and associated symptoms are more prevalent in patients with malocclusion with or without more associated factors.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".