Mouth Breathing and Its Impact on Atypical Swallowing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review is the assessment of the effect of mouth breathing on the prevalence of tongue thrust. The review was performed according to the PRISMA 2020 checklist guidelines, and the protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022339527). The inclusion criteria were the following: studies of clinical trials and cross-sectional and longitudinal descriptive studies that evaluate the appearance of tongue thrust in patients with mouth breathing; healthy subjects of any age, race or sex; and studies with a minimum sample group of five cases. The exclusion criteria were the following: studies with syndromic patients, articles from case reports, and letters to the editor and/or publisher. Searches were performed in electronic databases such as The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE via PUBMED), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and Scopus, including studies published until November 2023, without a language filter. The methodological quality of the included case-control studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool was used for descriptive cross-sectional studies and cross-sectional prevalence studies. A meta-analysis was conducted on studies that provided data on patients' classification according to mouth breathing (yes/no) as well as atypical swallowing (yes/no) using Review Manager 5.4. From 424 records, 12 articles were selected, and 4 were eligible for meta-analysis. It was shown that there is no consensus on the diagnostic methods used for mouth breathing and tongue thrust. The pooled risk ratio of atypical swallowing was significantly higher in the patients with mouth breathing (RR: 3.70; 95% CI: 2.06 to 6.66). These studies have several limitations, such as the heterogeneity among the individual studies in relation to the diagnostic tools and criteria for the assessment of mouth breathing and atypical swallowing. Considering the results, this systematic review shows that patients with mouth breathing presented higher risk ratios for atypical swallowing.
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 | 0.020 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".