ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
A new classification of wind instruments: Orofacial considerations.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case Report: Fabrication of a plumper-type music splint for saxophone performance in a patient with a full-arch implant-supported prosthesis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Wind Instruments and Oral Health: Challenges Faced by Professional Wind Musicians.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
- Tooth Position in Wind Instrument Players: Dentofacial Cephalometric Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Orofacial Trauma on the Anterior Zone of a Trumpet's Player Maxilla: Concept of the Oral Rehabilitation-A Case Report.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Craniofacial morphology of wind and string instrument players: a cephalometric study.BMC medical imaging · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivePlaying a wind instrument implies rhythmic jaw movements where the embouchure applies forces with different directions and intensities towards the orofacial structures. These features are relevant when comparing the differences between a clarinettist and a saxophone player embouchure, independently to the fact that both belong to the single-reed instrument group, making therefore necessary to update the actual classification.
methodsLateral cephalograms were taken to single-reed, double-reed and brass instrumentalists with the purpose of analyzing the relationship of the mouthpiece and the orofacial structures.
resultsThe comparison of the different wind instruments showed substantial differences. Therefore the authors purpose a new classification of wind instruments: Class 1 single-reed mouthpiece, division 1- clarinet, division 2 -saxophone; Class 2 double-reed instruments, division 1- oboe, division 2- bassoon; Class 3 cup-shaped mouthpiece, division 1- trumpet and French horn, division 2- trombone and tuba; Class 4 aperture mouthpieces, division 1- flute, division 2 - transversal flute and piccolo.
conclusionsElements such as dental arches, teeth and lips, assume vital importance at a new nomenclature and classification of woodwind instruments that were in the past mainly classified by the type of mouthpiece and not taking into consideration its relationship with their neighboring structures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.