Nutritional and anthropometric analysis of edentulous patients wearing implant overdentures or conventional dentures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As masticatory efficiency diminishes drastically in edentulous patients, several researchers have studied over the past two decades how dietary intake varies when different types of oral rehabilitation are provided. Since the use of implants to support prostheses in edentulous mandibles has been shown to significantly improve masticatory performance, the question remains as to whether this improvement will influence the nutritional status. The purose of this study was to evaluate the nutritional status of edentulous patients who randomly received either a mandibular conventional denture (CD) or an implant-supported overdenture (IP) 1 year previously. Weight, height, body composition and handgrip strength measurements were collected for analysis. Blood tests were performed to measure plasma parameters of diet intake. Participants responded to a Food Frequency Questionnaire and a Masticatory Function Questionnaire. Fifty-three people participated (58% men, 42% women; mean age = 53). Body composition indicators as well as plasma parameters were generally within normal range, and no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) was found between the groups. Patients in the CD group had significantly lower ratings for items regarding difficulty in chewing (p<0.05), but no significant difference was found for dietary intake (p>0.05). Although the CD wearers reported having more difficulty in chewing hard foods, both groups appeared to have a similar nutritional status.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".