↓ Skip to main content

Guidelines proposal for clinical recognition of mouth breathing children

Overview of attention for article published in Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 459)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Guidelines proposal for clinical recognition of mouth breathing children
Published in
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, August 2015
DOI 10.1590/2176-9451.20.4.039-044.oar
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Christina Thomé Pacheco, Camila Ferreira Casagrande, Lícia Pacheco Teixeira, Nathalia Silveira Finck, Maria Teresa Martins de Araújo

Abstract

Mouth breathing (MB) is an etiological factor for sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) during childhood. The habit of breathing through the mouth may be perpetuated even after airway clearance. Both habit and obstruction may cause facial muscle imbalance and craniofacial changes. The aim of this paper is to propose and test guidelines for clinical recognition of MB and some predisposing factors for SDB in children. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 110 orthodontists regarding their procedures for clinical evaluation of MB and their knowledge about SDB during childhood. Thereafter, based on their answers, guidelines were developed and tested in 687 children aged between 6 and 12 years old and attending elementary schools. There was no standardization for clinical recognition of MB among orthodontists. The most common procedures performed were inefficient to recognize differences between MB by habit or obstruction. The guidelines proposed herein facilitate clinical recognition of MB, help clinicians to differentiate between habit and obstruction, suggest the most appropriate treatment for each case, and avoid maintenance of mouth breathing patterns during adulthood.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 217 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 18%
Student > Master 30 14%
Student > Postgraduate 14 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 6%
Professor 6 3%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 91 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Unspecified 3 1%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 91 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2022.
All research outputs
#4,659,861
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
#31
of 459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,960
of 276,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 459 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them