Influence of anterior open bite on oral health-related quality of life. A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Anterior open bite is a malocclusion caused by genetic and environmental causes that affect esthetics, occlusion, and speech, impacting the quality of life in children, adolescents, and adults.However, to date, no systematic review has analyzed the influence of anterior open bite (AOB) on oral health-related quality of life.Material and Methods: This systematic review conducted a comprehensive search in the MEDLINE (via PubMed), EBSCO, SCOPUS, and LILACS databases until September 30, 2023.A total of 321 articles were identified across these databases.After applying the selection criteria, 13 articles were selected for full-text evaluation.Ultimately, only six studies, all cross-sectional, were included in the review.The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was utilized to assess the risk of bias in these studies.Results: Six studies have found that AOB affects quality of life.In adults, it has a greater impact on women, especially on psychological and social well-being.In children, negative effects are observed in symptoms, function, and psychological aspects, with poor outcomes.One study found no significant differences in quality of life in children with AOB.Conclusions: The review indicates that AOB (anterior open bite) significantly impacts quality of life, particularly in psychological and functional areas such as speech, eating, and smiling.This information is essential for both orthodontists and patients.While most studies show moderate bias, further well-designed research is recommended.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".