ArticleBMC oral health2026
Clinical significance of mouth breathing as a marker of severity in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate whether clinically assessed mouth-breathing severity is independently associated with polysomnography–defined obstructive sleep apnea severity in children with adenoidal hypertrophy and/or tonsillar hypertrophy, and to evaluate its potential as a non-invasive predictor of moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed pediatric inpatients admitted for planned adenotonsillectomy at Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital. Based on a mouth-breathing score (range 1–7), patients were categorized into mild (scores 1–3) or severe (scores 4–7) mouth-breathing groups. Obstructive sleep apnea severity was classified as non-to-mild [obstructive apnea–hypopnea index ≤ 5 events/h] or moderate-to-severe (obstructive apnea–hypopnea index > 5 events/h). Demographic, clinical, and polysomnography parameters were compared. Correlation and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of moderate-to-severe condition, and the diagnostic performance of the predictive model was evaluated.
resultsCompared with mild mouth-breathing group, the severe group demonstrated significantly higher apnea–hypopnea index, obstructive apnea–hypopnea index, percentage of total sleep time with oxygen saturation < 90%, and lower mean oxygen saturation (all P < 0.05). Mouth-breathing scores positively correlated with apnea–hypopnea index and obstructive apnea–hypopnea index (rho = 0.2173, 0.2102, P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis identified severe mouth-breathing scores (OR = 2.357; 95% CI, 1.354–4.101; P = 0.002), female sex (OR = 0.602; 95% CI, 0.377–0.961; P = 0.034), and tonsillar grade > II (OR = 1.820; 95% CI, 1.147–2.886; P = 0.011) as independent predictors of moderate-to-severe diseases. The multivariable model yielded an AUC of 0.658. At the optimal cutoff defined by the Youden index (0.228), it demonstrated a sensitivity of 73.1%, a specificity of 49.6%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 35.7%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 82.8%. In comparison, using a mouth-breathing score ≥ 4 as a standalone diagnostic criterion produced an AUC of 0.636, with corresponding sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 82.4%, 35.5%, 32.8%, and 84.0%, respectively.
conclusionsMouth-breathing score was independently associated with the severity of obstructive sleep apnea in children with adenoidal hypertrophy and/or tonsillar hypertrophy. These findings indicate that structured mouth-breathing assessment may serve as a simple, non-invasive adjunct to clinical risk stratification for pediatric obstructive sleep apnea.
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.