Pain and denture condition in edentulous orodyskinesia: Comparisons with tardive dyskinesia and control subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Edentulous orodyskinesia (ED) is a neglected source of aimless oral movements that may be confused with tardive dyskinesia (TD). We attempted to clarify the clinical features, significance, and orodental factors in relation to ED. Fourteen ED subjects, 13 TD patients, and 15 age-matched controls self-assessed their oral pain perception, condition, and function using a visual analogue scale. Dyskinesias were classified and rated by a neurologist. Perioral thermal and pressure pain threshold studies, and a standardized orodental examination, were conducted blind to subject group. The perceived oral pain level was low in all groups, and those reporting a significant intensity level of pain (>or=50th percentile) were few. The pain thresholds in both dyskinetic groups were comparable to control values. All ED cases wore a complete set of dentures, considered a current source of problems by 85.7% of them. ED cases commonly displayed inadequate dental occlusal relationship (P = 0.014 vs. controls; P = 0.036 vs. TD) and an overclosed vertical dimension (P = 0.006 vs. controls) as well as unstable and unretentive dentures. ED was limited to the oral region, spared the tongue when the mouth is open, and was never severe in our patients. ED has distinct movement characteristics and is often associated with inadequate dentures and biomechanical sources of denture instability. The contribution of the foregoing findings to the expression of oral dyskinesia warrants further studies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".