Practices and Perception of Paediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea Among Orthodontists and Paediatric Dentists in Brazil: A Mixed‐Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore orthodontists' (OTs) and paediatric dentists' (PDs) practices and perceptions regarding the screening and management of paediatric obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). METHODS: This explanatory sequential mixed methods design included OTs and PDs with active clinical practice in Brazil and encompassed a quantitative phase followed by a qualitative phase. In the quantitative phase, a survey assessing OSA screening and management practices was administered to OTs and PDs practicing in Brazil. Information-rich OTs and PDs were interviewed in the qualitative phase. Descriptive statistics and the chi-square test were used to analyse the survey data, while inductive content analysis was applied to the interview data. The results from both phases were integrated and reported narratively. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-one OTs and PDs completed the survey, and ten of them were interviewed. Nearly half of OTs and PDs administered sleep questionnaires and demonstrated some knowledge about paediatric OSA signs and symptoms. PDs and OTs primarily offered rapid maxillary expansion and functional mandibular advancement for managing selected children with OSA, with OTs being more frequently involved in this task than PDs. OTs and PDs identified several barriers and expressed the need for support regarding access to reliable screening tools and interprofessional care. CONCLUSION: Brazilian OTs and PDs were aware of the main signs and symptoms of paediatric OSA and were somewhat involved in offering oral appliance management options. To further define the role of these professionals, increasing support for dental professionals in OSA management and updating existing clinical guidelines is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".