2021
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijcoms.20210702.12
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prevalence of Malocclusion Patterns in Mouth Breathing Children Compared to Nasal Breathing Children – A Systematic Review

Abstract: The prevalence of malocclusion in mouth breathing children compared to nasal breathing children is unclear, therefore the aim of this study is to identify this prevalence in a systematic review. Seven studies were included. Six studies investigated the prevalence of malocclusion in mouth breathers and compared them with the prevalence data in nose breathers. One study evaluated the prevalence of mouth-and nose breathing in children with malocclusion. The prevalence rates for class I to class III malocclusions … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 28 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Given how common mouth breathing is in children and the potential consequences it might do to their growth and education, this is alarming. 24 Such programs could give preschool teachers the know-how and abilities they need to identify children who are mouth breathers. 25 This could involve being aware of the warning signs and symptoms of this condition, comprehending the potential consequences, and being familiar with suitable referral practices.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given how common mouth breathing is in children and the potential consequences it might do to their growth and education, this is alarming. 24 Such programs could give preschool teachers the know-how and abilities they need to identify children who are mouth breathers. 25 This could involve being aware of the warning signs and symptoms of this condition, comprehending the potential consequences, and being familiar with suitable referral practices.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%