Bite force of children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to assess bite force measurements in children and adolescents and to study the various devices that measure Maximum Voluntary Bite Force (MVBF). This systematic review included observational studies and experimental studies in children and adolescents (upto 19 years of age) which evaluated MVBF using a bite force measuring device. Studies on participants with systemic conditions were excluded. Databases such as PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane library were searched until September 2022, for which screening and quality assessment were performed. Newcastle-Ottawa, modified Newcastle-Ottawa and ROBINS-I tools were used to assess the Risk-of-bias. All observational studies reporting overall bite force values of participants were included for meta-analyses. A total of 8864 participants (3491 males and 3623 females) were included from 61 studies. Meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate mean average bite force value for each included dentition using R software v2.4-0. Estimation was done to derive an average BF value for variables such as age (dentition), gender, side, site, device and ethnicity. MVBF values were reported as mean average in the form of MLN with 95% CI (Confidence Interval). Using a random-effects model, 29 forest plots were generated. I2 values varied between 90% and 100%. Bite force ranged from 246.22 N (220.47; 274.98) to 311.72 N (255.99; 379.59) and 489.35 N (399.86; 598.87) in primary, mixed, and permanent dentitions, respectively. Six different sites for recording bite force and 11 different types of devices were reported with portable occlusal bite force gauge being the most common device. Outcomes of this review provide useful baseline reference values of bite force for clinicians and researchers.
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".