Impact of myofunctional therapy on orthodontic management and orthognathic surgery outcomes: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orofacial myofunctional disorders (OMDs) are conditions or behaviors that negatively affect oral postures and functions. These behaviors can interfere with normal orofacial growth and development and related functions. OBJECTIVES: Map the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of Orofacial Myofunctional Therapy (OMT) in treating or managing OMDs associated with specific malocclusion traits or orthognathic surgery outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: An experienced librarian developed a comprehensive search strategy for six databases and gray literature. The reference lists of included studies were reviewed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of intervention were included in which individuals with OMDs were treated with OMT, regardless of the healthcare setting or the professional delivering the treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers screened the retrieved records in two phases based on predefined eligibility criteria and extracted data. The evidence level was assessed using the Oxford Levels of Evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included (18 primary studies and 6 reviews). Seven studies focused on OMDs associated with malocclusion sagittal characteristics (Class I, II, or III), ten examined open-bite-related OMDs, and seven explored OMDs following orthognathic surgery. Only four studies (22%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs); most studies lacked proper randomization procedures, did not report allocation concealment, and three of the four RCTs were open-label. Among the six comparisons identified, five were deemed plausible (four with a level of evidence 3 and one with a level of evidence 2). No comparisons were rated at level 1 evidence. As a result, the effectiveness of OMT alone or in combination with orthodontic treatment for the conditions of interest could not be conclusively confirmed. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm or refute this finding and to strengthen the overall evidence base. CONCLUSION: Although no high-level evidence currently supports the effectiveness of OMT for managing OMDs associated with malocclusion traits, its potential effectiveness remains plausible. Level 2 evidence suggests that OMT may effectively manage OMDs following orthognathic surgery. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/M6HNS).
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 | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".