Effect of artificial tooth material on mandibular residual ridge resorption.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this 10-year longitudinal study we evaluated the amount of mandibular residual ridge resorption for 2 groups of subjects with complete dentures, one group with porcelain artificial teeth and the other with acrylic resin teeth. METHODS: One hundred and nine patients who had undergone ridge extension procedures with skin graft and prosthetic rehabilitation with porcelain or acrylic resin teeth were investigated for mandibular bone loss. Measurements were made on serial cephalograms. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics (age, period of edentulousness, period of observation, vertical facial morphology, sex, severity of atrophy or presence of bruxism). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in amount of bone loss in relation to baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: The view that acrylic resin teeth should be preferred to prevent bone resorption of the mandibular residual ridge is not supported by these data. Further research concerning soft denture-lining material should be undertaken to elucidate the potential role of denture pressure in ridge resorption.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".