Temporomandibular disorders and orofacial neuropathic pain in children and adolescents: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, (i) Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD), (ii) Headache, and (iii) Neuropathies. This review aims to provide an overview of these three causes of OFP. The inclusion criteria are: (1) articles in English; (2) human studies; (3) clinical trials; (4) systematic review. Data from the included studies using a customized data extraction on a Microsoft Excel sheet. PubMed, Web of Science and Lilacs were systematically searched. The time window considered for the electronic search was from 01 January 1950 to 21 October 2022. A total of 3399 articles published were found from electronic searches. Finally, six full-text articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. The included studies have been published over the past 27 years (1993 to 2020). The studies analyzed were conducted in various parts of the world: USA, Argentina, Canada, South America (Brazil), and India. A total of 308 subjects were analyzed. TMD, headache, and neuropathies are among the leading causes of orofacial pain. Lifestyle changes and psychological approaches could be curative. However, some patients need pharmacotherapy. Regarding the inadequate treatment of pain after hospital discharge due to the difficulty of following the scheduled intervals prescribed, remote monitoring through telemedicine tools could be a solution in the future. Several conditions present with pain in children and adolescents; in most of them, pain is the most prominent symptom. This review found that one of the most critical causes of OFP is temporomandibular dysfunction. Treatment is founded on a multidisciplinary approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".