Measuring the Effect of Intra-oral Implant Rehabilitation on Health-related Quality of Life in a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of assessing the impact of treatments for chronic conditions on an individual's quality of life has been well-established. In this randomized clinical trial, oral-health-related quality of life, measured with the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), was compared between two groups of edentulous patients. One group (n = 54) received mandibular implant-supported overdentures, and the other group (n = 48) received conventional dentures. Assessments were performed pre-treatment and two months after the prostheses were delivered. The multivariate model showed that implant treatment was significantly associated with lower post-treatment OHIP scores (p = 0.0002), indicating a better quality of life. In addition, pretreatment OHIP scores, treatment allocation, age, sex, and marital status explained 31% of the variation in post-treatment OHIP scores (F = 0.0001). These results suggest that implant treatment provides significant short-term improvement over conventional treatment in oral-health-related quality of life.
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 | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".