MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tactile Sensibility of Single‐Tooth Implants and Natural Teeth Under Local Anesthesia of the Natural Antagonistic Teeth

2009· article· en· W1572529304 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norbert Enkling, Stefan Heussner, Claudia Nicolay, Stefan Bayer, Regina Mericske‐Stern, Karl‐Heinz Utz

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentistrySensibilityImplantMedicineOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: The term osseoperception describes the capability of developing a subtle tactile sensibility over dental implants. The present clinical study aims at clarifying the question of how far tactile sensibility is to be attributed to the periodontium of the natural opposing tooth of the implant. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Thirty-two subjects with single-tooth implants with natural opposing teeth were included in this clinical, single-blind, split-mouth study. The natural antagonistic tooth of the implant and the corresponding natural contralateral tooth were anesthetized with a locally infiltrated articaine anesthetic. In a computer-assisted and randomized way, copper foils of varying thickness (0-100 µm) were placed interocclusally between the single-tooth implant and the natural opposing tooth, and between the contralateral pair of natural opposing teeth in order to investigate the active tactile sensibility according to the psychophysical method of constant stimuli and evaluate it statistically by the Weibull distribution. RESULTS: The average tactile sensibility of the implants with anesthetized antagonists at the 50% value calculated by means of the Weibull distribution was 20 ± 11 µm with a support area (90%-10% value) of 77 ± 89 µm. For the pair of natural teeth, the tactile sensibility at the 50% value was 16 ± 9 µm with a support area of 48.4 ± 93 µm. This resulted in an average intraindividual difference of 3.5 ± 7 µm at the 50% value and 29 ± 93 µm in the support area. The statistical calculations demonstrated an equivalent tactile sensibility (50% value) of the single-tooth implant and the contralateral natural control tooth with the natural antagonists being anesthetized in each case (double t-test, equivalence limit ± 8 µm, P < 0.01, power >80%). CONCLUSION: Apparently, the active tactile sensibility of single-tooth implants with natural opposing teeth is not only to be attributed to the periodontium of the opposing tooth but also to a perception over the implant itself. This could support the hypothesis according to which the implant may have a tactile sensibility of its own.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia TechniquesFrench-language works237,207