Active Tactile Sensibility of Single‐Tooth Implants versus Natural Dentition: A Split‐Mouth Double‐Blind Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unlike passive sensitivity of implants/teeth that is assessed more, only three controversial studies have compared active tactile sensibility (ATS) of implants and teeth. PURPOSE: We aimed to explore the difference between the ATS of teeth and single-tooth implants. METHODS: The ATS of single-tooth implants and contralateral teeth was measured in 25 patients after they bit on gold and placebo foils 0- to 70-μm thick, each for five times, in a random order blinded to patients and assessor, carried out at two sessions. Based on the experimental range of 0 μm (mock trials) to 70 μm, the sigmoid shape of psychometric curve was estimated to locate the 50% values as the ATS thresholds for each tooth or implant. ATS Data were analyzed using paired and unpaired t-tests and multiple linear regression (α = 0.05, β ≤ 0.1). Also, equivalence testing approach was used to assess semi-objectively the clinical significance. RESULTS: Average ATS values for teeth and implants were 21.4 ± 6.55 μm and 30.0 ± 7.55 μm, respectively (p = .0001 [paired t-test]). None of the geometric characteristics of implants nor duration of implant in function were correlated with the ATS (p > .4 [regression]). Age was positively associated with the ATS of both implants and teeth (p ≤ .019 [regression]). Tooth ATS (but not implant ATS) was significantly higher in males compared with females (p = .050 [unpaired t-test]), which contributed to a generalizable tooth-implant difference higher than 8-μm clinical equivalence margin in females. The ATS was not significantly different between arches or between anterior/posterior regions (p > .6). CONCLUSION: There was a slight but statistically significant difference between implant and tooth tactile sensitivities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".