A review of functional outcomes related to prosthetic treatment after maxillary and mandibular reconstruction in patients with head and neck cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This review examined literature that reported functional outcomes across 3 categories of prosthetic treatment after microvascular reconstruction of the maxilla and mandible: (1) conventional dental/tissue-supported prosthesis, (2) implant-retained prosthesis, and (3) no prosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Library databases were searched for articles related to reconstruction of the maxilla and mandible, and references of selected articles were hand searched. Relevant literature was identified and reviewed with criteria specified a priori. RESULTS: Forty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Twelve articles reported on function after maxillary reconstruction, with the majority of articles reporting on outcomes for 1 to 6 subjects. Thirty-nine articles reported on function after mandibular reconstruction. Speech outcomes were satisfactory across all groups. Swallowing reports indicated that many patients who received either type of prosthetic rehabilitation resumed a normal diet, whereas those without prosthetic rehabilitation were often restricted to liquid diets or feeding tubes. Patients without prosthetic rehabilitation reportedly had poor masticatory ability, whereas conventional prosthetic treatment allowed some recovery of mastication and implant-retained prosthetic treatment resulted in the most favorable masticatory outcomes. Quality-of-life outcomes were similar across all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Several limitations of the current literature prevented definitive conclusions from being reached within this review, especially regarding maxillary reconstruction. However, recognition of these limitations can direct functional assessment for the future.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".