L’obstruction du nez et du nasopharynx et leur désobstruction médico-chirurgicale influencent-elles significativement la divergence faciale ? Une revue concise des études cliniques majeures avec méta-analyse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The term « adenoid facies » suggests a causal relationship between nasopharyngeal obstruction and facial hyperdivergence in growing subjects. The strength of this association is controversial and few « quantified » values exist. Materials and methods: A rapid electronic search was conducted on PubMed and Embase to find the main cephalometric studies involving patients with nasal/nasopharyngeal obstruction compared to a control sample. A meta-analysis was carried out to quantify the effect of obstruction (1) and intervention to relieve the obstruction (2) on mandibular divergence (SN/Pmand angle), maxillo-mandibular divergence (PP/Pmand angle), inclination of the occlusal plane (SN/Poccl) and the gonial angle (ArGoMe). Results: Qualitatively, the studies' bias level ranged from moderate to high. Results were concordant about the significant effect of the obstruction on facial divergence (1) with an increase in SN/Pmand (+3.6° on average, +4.1° in children <6 years), PP/Pmand (+5.4° on average, +7.7° <6 years), ArGoMe (+3.3°) and SN/Pocc (+1.9°). Surgical interventions to remove the respiratory obstacle in children (2) generally did not normalize the direction of growth, with the exception, with a very low level of evidence, of adenoidectomies/adeno-tonsillectomies, performed at an age less than 6-8 years. Conclusion: Early detection of respiratory obstacles and postural abnormalities associated with oral breathing appears to be decisive in order to hope for management at a young age and normalization of the direction of growth. However, the effects on mandibular divergence remain limited, requiring caution, and cannot be considered a surgical indication.
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 | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".