Perceptual Changes in the Anterior Maxilla after Placement of Endosseous Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The innervation of skin and oral mucosa plays a major physiologic role in exteroception. It is also of interest clinically, as illustrated by sensory changes after neurosurgical procedures. PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the perception of mechanical stimuli applied to the anterior maxilla in denture wearers and subjects rehabilitated with osseointegrated implants compared with that in subjects with a natural dentition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five groups of subjects were selected and tested in the maxillary region only. Test groups included patients with a complete denture, an implant-supported fixed prosthesis (full or partial), or a single-tooth replacement. Light-touch sensation and two-point discrimination were performed on the buccal side of the alveolar mucosa and vibrotactile function was determined for natural teeth, full dentures, or implant-supported prostheses. RESULTS: For light-touch sensation, no significant differences could be found between the groups. For two-point discrimination, full-denture patients showed higher threshold levels than the other groups. The threshold levels for vibrotactile function were higher in both full dentures and implant-supported prostheses compared with natural dentitions. CONCLUSION: Natural dentitions offer superior vibrotactile function compared to any other dental status. Full dentures often show a stronger deterioration of the (vibro)tactile function compared with implant-supported prostheses.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".