MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408652448 · doi:10.1111/ocr.12911

Are Orthodontic Interventions Associated With Headaches in Children and Adolescents? A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2025· review· en· W4408652448 on OpenAlexaff
Luiz Felipe Tavares, Reid Friesen, M Neuhaus, Harry von Piekartz, Susan Armijo‐Olivo

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthodontics and Craniofacial Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeadachesCINAHLMalocclusionMeta-analysisPsychological interventionMEDLINEOdds ratioMigraineDentistryPhysical therapyPediatricsInternal medicineSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to assess the prevalence of headaches in children and adolescents during and after completing orthodontic treatment. This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. An extensive literature search was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane from inception until December 20, 2024. Studies targeting individuals between 7 and 18 years old, diagnosed with malocclusions, and receiving orthodontic treatment were included. A meta-analysis (odds ratio) was performed considering the number of individuals with and without headache, who did and did not undergo orthodontic treatment. The quality of studies was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Finally, the overall certainty of the evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria with a pooled sample size of 1.141 individuals. No statistically significant difference in the prevalence of headache was found between children who received orthodontic intervention compared to no treatment (OR 1.22 [CI 0.78; 1.92]; p = 0.38). Children with malocclusion who were treated orthodontically had significantly fewer headaches after treatment compared to untreated children with class II malocclusion (OR 0.42 [CI 0.19; 0.92]; p = 0.03). All studies had a high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was very low. In summary, no increased prevalence of headaches was detected during or after orthodontic interventions in children and adolescents with malocclusions when compared to those who did not receive orthodontic treatment. Instead, children with malocclusion treated orthodontically had significantly fewer headaches after treatment compared to untreated children with malocclusion. Further research is needed, as the conduct and quality of the existing studies need substantial improvement. Trial Registration: CRD42022340817 (PROSPERO).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.031
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthodontics and Craniofacial ResearchSame topicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia TechniquesFrench-language works237,207