Effects of Malocclusion on Maximal Aerobic Capacity and Athletic Performance in Young Sub-Elite Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral pathologies can cause athletic underperformance. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of malocclusion on maximal aerobic capacity in young athletes with the same anthropometric data, diet, training mode, and intensity from the same athletics training center. Sub-elite track and field athletes (middle-distance runners) with malocclusion (experimental group (EG); n = 37; 21 girls; age: 15.1 ± 1.5 years) and without malocclusion (control group (CG); n = 13; 5 girls; age: 14.7 ± 1.9 years) volunteered to participate in this study. Participants received an oral diagnosis to examine malocclusion, which was defined as an overlapping of teeth that resulted in impaired contact between the teeth of the mandible and the teeth of the upper jaw. Maximal aerobic capacity was assessed using the VAMEVAL test (calculated MAS and estimated VO2max). The test consisted of baseline values that included the following parameters: maximum aerobic speed (MAS), maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), heart rate frequency, systolic (SAP) and diastolic arterial pressure (DAP), blood lactate concentration (LBP), and post-exercise blood lactate assessment (LAP) after the performance of the VAMEVAL test. There were no statistically significant differences between the two study groups related to either anthropometric data (age: EG = 15.1 ± 1.5 vs. CC = 14.7 ± 1.9 years (p = 0.46); BMI: EG = 19.25 ± 1.9 vs. CC = 19.42 ± 1.7 kg/m2 (p = 0.76)) or for the following physical fitness parameters and biomarkers: MAS: EG = 15.5 (14.5–16.5) vs. CG = 15.5 (15–17) km/h (p = 0.47); VO2max: EG = 54.2 (52.5–58.6) vs. CG = 54.2 (53.4–59.5) mL/kg/min (p = 0.62) (IQR (Q1–Q3)); heart rate before the physical test: EG = 77.1 ± 9.9 vs. CG = 74.3 ± 14.0 bpm (p = 0.43); SAP: EG = 106.6 ± 13.4 vs. CG = 106.2 ± 14.8 mmHg (p = 0.91); DAP: EG = 66.7 ± 9.1 vs. CG = 63.9 ± 10.2 mmHg (p = 0.36); LBP: EG = 1.5 ± 0.4 vs. CG = 1.3 ± 0.4 mmol/L (p = 0.12); and LAP: EG = 4.5 ± 2.36 vs. CG = 4.06 ± 3.04 mmol/L (p = 0.60). Our study suggests that dental malocclusion does not impede maximal aerobic capacity and the athletic performance of young track and field athletes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".