Patient Evaluation of Treatment with Fixed Prostheses Supported by Implants or a Combination of Teeth and Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare treatment outcomes among subjects with complete arch fixed prostheses in the maxilla, supported by implants or a combination of natural teeth and dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one subjects with maxillary tooth- and implant-supported fixed prostheses and 21 subjects with maxillary implant-supported fixed prostheses were identified and included in the study. All abutment teeth in the group with tooth- and implant-supported prostheses were provided with cemented copings that incorporated threads for vertical locking screws. Frameworks were fabricated with a gold alloy that was veneered with acrylic resin or ceramic materials. All frameworks were screw-retained to implants and copings. Frameworks in the group with implant-supported prostheses were fabricated with milled titanium or gold alloy to which denture teeth and resin base material were applied. All prostheses had a minimum of 8 units, at least 4 of which were in one quadrant. Subjects in both groups were mailed a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions focused on various factors related to treatment outcome, such as oral function and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The response rate was 86%. Both groups reported a high satisfaction rate for most items with few regretting their choice of treatment. Most individuals in both groups reported great improvement in chewing ability and few reported phonetic disturbances. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study showed similarity in questionnaire responses between the 2 groups of participants. High satisfaction was reported both among subjects who received a complete arch fixed prosthesis in the maxilla supported by dental implants only, as well as among those whose prostheses were supported by a combination of natural teeth and dental implants.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".