Speech with Maxillary Implant Prostheses: Ratings of Articulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech is often perturbed after placement of maxillary implant-retained prostheses. We tested the hypothesis that the rate of speech errors varies with prosthetic design. Thirty edentulous subjects with mandibular implant prostheses entered two within-subject crossover trials. Subjects wore maxillary fixed prostheses and removable long-bar overdentures (Trial 1), or overdentures with and without palates (Trial 2). Test words from a French language speech battery were recorded after each prosthesis had been worn for two months. The percentages of stops, fricatives, and vowels correctly perceived by lay judges were calculated. Subjects produced a significantly higher percentage of sounds correctly with overdentures than with fixed prostheses. Between-treatment differences were significant for stops and fricatives (p < 0.01), but not for vowels. There were no significant differences in error rates between the two overdentures. In conclusion, maxillary implant overdentures with and without palates enable patients to produce more intelligible speech than fixed 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".