All on <scp>F</scp>our® Fixed Implant Support Rehabilitation: A Masticatory Function Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fixed implant-supported prostheses according to All-on-Four® (Nobel Biocare, Goteborg, Sweden) principles have become an accepted treatment modality in totally edentulous patients, whereas the functional effect of this therapy is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the muscular function of patients totally rehabilitated with All-on-Four. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated 63 patients. Twenty-one patients were successfully rehabilitated with maxillary and mandibular All-on-Four (no dropout implants, satisfactory aesthetic and function demands prosthesis), 21 patients were dentate, and 21 were rehabilitated with double complete dentures. Electromyography was carried out during clenching, nonhabitual and habitual chewing, and rest. All values were standardized as percentage of a maximum voluntary contraction. Data were analyzed by ANOVA to compare groups and paired t-test was used for comparison between sides within each group. RESULTS: All groups presented symmetric muscular activity. The All-on-Four and dentate groups had a similar muscles surface electromyography (sEMG) contraction pattern, that is, a higher sEMG activity of masseter than temporalis muscles, differing (p ≤ .05) from those of denture group. Not one statistical difference was found between All-on-Four and dentate groups. CONCLUSION: The muscular function similarity of All-on-Four and dentate patients shows that this treatment concept may be considered as a good option for oral rehabilitation in edentulous patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".