ArticleBMC oral health2025
Smart devices, head posture, and malocclusion: is there a relationship? A prospective controlled study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConsidering the widespread and growing use of smart devices, this study aimed to investigate the association between smart device use and malocclusion, potentially mediated by changes in head posture.
methodsDental patients scheduled to undergo lateral cephalograms at a university dental hospital and who met the inclusion criteria were invited to participate. A questionnaire was completed to collect baseline demographics (age, gender, and parental education) and assess the severity of smart device use (MPPUS-10). Craniocervical and craniofacial measurements, hyoid bone position, and malocclusion characteristics were assessed using lateral cephalometric analysis.
resultsA total of 97 patients (aged 9 to 20 years) completed the questionnaire. Patients with moderate smart device use (n = 50) were excluded, and only mild users (G1 = 23) and severe users (G2 = 24) were included in the final analysis. The orientation of the maxilla relative to the vertical axis was significantly more clockwise in G2 (P = 0.013). Skeletal pattern assessment using ANB and Wits analyses showed that G1 had significantly more Class I skeletal patterns, while G2 had a higher prevalence of Class III patterns. Although severe users demonstrated more forward bending of the cervical column with smaller craniocervical angles, these differences were not statistically significant.
conclusionThis study suggests an association between severe smart device use and a higher prevalence of Class III malocclusion. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between smart device use, head posture, and craniofacial development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.