Functional adaptation of the masticatory system to implant‐supported mandibular overdentures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives The purpose of this study was to investigate the adaptation behavior of the stomatognathic system after immediate loading (24 to 72 h after surgery) of two implants supporting mandibular overdentures, assessed on insertion and three months later. The study hypothesis was that insertion of the overdentures would significantly change masticatory performance and muscle activity at both times. Material and methods Thirty subjects (nine female, mean age 69.64 ± 11.81 years; 21 male, mean age 68.67 ± 7.41 years) who participated in a randomized clinical trial were included in the study. Each patient was examined three times: (i) at baseline, after already having worn new dentures for three months (T1); (ii) immediately after insertion of the overdentures on the implants (T2); and (iii) after an adaptation period of three months (T3). Examination comprised assessment of masticatory performance with artificial test food (Optocal), and simultaneous bilateral surface EMG recording of the masseter and anterior temporalis muscles. Particle‐size distribution (representative value X50), maximum muscle contraction (MVC), and total muscle work (TMW; area under the curve) were compared by use of repeated‐measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results At T3, all measured variables (i.e., masticatory performance and muscle activity) were significantly different from those at T1. At T2, no significant changes were observed. The study hypothesis had to be rejected for T2 but accepted for T3. Conclusion Functional rehabilitation (in terms of masticatory performance and masticatory muscle activity) does not occur immediately after immediate loading of two implants with mandibular overdentures, but requires a significant time for functional improvement.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".