Three Tumor Patients with Total Maxillectomy Rehabilitated with Implant‐Supported Frameworks and Maxillary Obturators: A Follow‐Up Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few reports are available on treatment using implant-supported frameworks with maxillary obturators after total maxillectomy on tumor patients. PURPOSE: To describe, evaluate, and report the clinical and radiographic performance of implant-supported frameworks and maxillary obturators after maxillectomy during the first years of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three patients with cancer in the maxillary region treated by total maxillectomy were rehabilitated. Seventeen dental and two craniofacial implants were installed, and the patients each received implant-supported, screw-retained, three-unit frameworks with a U-shaped bar and obturators retained by four magnetic attachments. Clinical and radiographic data were collected up to 7 years of follow-up. RESULTS: The frequency of complications was low. Two craniofacial implants and one dental implant were loose and removed at abutment connection. No implants were lost after framework connection, and the mean marginal bone loss was small. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this report, dental implants are useful for rehabilitation of total maxillectomy patients, and a three-unit, screw-retained, implant-supported framework with maxillary obturator retained by magnetic attachment is a successful treatment concept for this patient group.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".