Patient ratings of chewing ability from a randomised crossover trial: lingualised vs. first premolar/canine‐guided occlusion for complete dentures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complex procedures involving a facebow transfer and the use of lingualised teeth are deemed to have a positive influence on the chewing ability with complete dentures. OBJECTIVES: To determine if patients' ratings of their ability to chew depend on the method of complete denture fabrication. METHODS: Edentulous patients (n = 20) participated in a within-subject crossover trial. Each patient received two sets of new complete dentures. One pair was manufactured based on intraoral tracing of centric relation and facebow transfer; semi-anatomical teeth with lingualised occlusion denture (LOD) were chosen. The second pair was made using a simplified procedure without facebow transfer; jaw relations were recorded with wax occlusion rims, and anatomical teeth with a first premolar/canine-guidance (CGD) were selected. The dentures were delivered in randomised order, and each was worn for 3 months. Three months after delivery, patients' ratings of each new prosthesis were recorded on visual analogue scales for their ability to chew seven index foods. Repeated measurements analysis of variance was performed to investigate possible carry-over effects accounting for confounding by treatment period. RESULTS: When comparing the two treatments, participants rated their ability to chew in general, to masticate carrots, hard sausage, steak and raw apple in particular, was significantly better with the CGD (anatomical teeth) than with the LOD (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Comprehensive methods for the fabrication of complete dentures including semi-anatomical lingualised teeth and a full registration do not seem to influence the perceived chewing ability, when compared with more simple procedures. Chewing ability for tough foods appears to benefit from the use of anatomical teeth.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it