Anterior open bite self-correction after cessation of non-nutritive sucking habits: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-nutritive sucking habits likely may cause occlusal changes such as anterior open bite (AOB) if they persist over extended time. OBJECTIVES: To assess if there is self-correction of AOB after cessation of non-nutritive sucking habits in children older than 4 years old, through a systematic review. SEARCH METHODS: Data sources included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) databases, gray literature as Google Scholar, the database System for Information on Gray Literature in Europe (OpenGrey) and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database, also hand searches of the included studies references. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies assessing occlusal changes in children aged 4-12 years with AOB traits and non-nutritive sucking habits after the discontinuation of the habit were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Checklist for quasi-experimental studies. The confidence in cumulative evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: Over 3100 studies, only 5 met the inclusion criteria. There is often self-correction of AOB after discontinuing the non-nutritive sucking habit, even in cases older than 4 years old. The improvement ranged between 50 and 100%. The overall quality of evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: AOB self-correction after discontinuing a non-nutritive sucking habit is possible, even after 4 years old, although with very low certainty in the body of evidence. It is not clear after what age the removal from the habit is unlikely to facilitate AOB self-correction. REGISTRATION AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews code: CRD42016052171. There was no conflicting interest from the review authors.
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 | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".