Dental Caries and Periodontal Outcomes in Mouth‐Breathing Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mouth breathing may lead to changes in the oral cavity. AIM: To compare dental caries and periodontal outcomes in children and adolescents with and without mouth breathing. DESIGN: This systematic review, registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024536891), included the following: Population: children and adolescents; Exposure: mouth breathing; Comparison: non-mouth breathing; Outcome: dental caries and periodontal/gingival conditions; Study design: observational studies. Electronic searches were conducted in five databases. Risk of bias was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Of the 838 records identified, 11 cross-sectional studies were included. The studies showed low bias in exposure, outcomes, and statistical analyses, though few met criteria for non-response and sample size adequacy. Individuals with mouth breathing exhibited increased gingival bleeding, plaque accumulation, and gingival alterations. Associations with dental caries were observed for initial lesions and for ICDAS scores 5 and 6. CONCLUSION: Mouth breathing in children and adolescents might be associated with gingival outcomes and plaque accumulation. Regarding dental caries, limited evidence suggests that the association is confined to initial and advanced lesions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".