Influence of the type of breastfeeding as a risk or protective factor for the onset of malocclusions: a systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The correlation between malocclusions in deciduous dentition and type of breastfeeding has been described by many authors in numerous articles. The aim of this article is to investigate the literature about this important topic. MATERIALS: The research was conducted by querying the following databases: PubMed, EBMR, Cochrane Library, Web of Sciences, Medline, Web of Sciences, Ovid and Embase. The key words were: "infant" OR "baby", AND "breastfeeding" AND "malocclusion". As with similar literature review papers, the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Protocols) was used. The examined articles were of the following types: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), case-control studies and cohort studies. For the qualitative analysis of the selected studies, it was employed the NOS scale (Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale). CONCLUSION: Two hundred and fifty articles were selected. After filtering out the articles deemed irrelevant or with obvious bias, only 16 articles were left. From our results, it can be concluded that breastfeeding seems to play a decisive role in preventing the onset of posterior cross-bites and Class II malocclusions, and that this protective effect appears to be time-dependent.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".