Comparison of speech and aesthetic outcomes in patients with maxillary reconstruction versus maxillary obturators after maxillectomy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two options exist for restoring structure and function after maxillectomy. Prosthodontic rehabilitation requires that an obturator be constructed to address the oronasal communication that exists after resection of the maxilla. Surgical reconstruction of the defect is another option, often accomplished with the use of bone-containing flaps. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prosthetic rehabilitation or surgical reconstruction of the maxilla provides better speech and facial aesthetic outcomes after maxillectomy. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASURES: Fifty-nine patients in three groups were included: 23 patients with maxillary obturators, 16 patients with maxillary reconstruction, and 20 patients without any maxillary defects but who were diagnosed with nasopharyngeal cancer and who served as a control group. Using digitized photographs, facial attractiveness was rated on a 10-point scale by eight judges who were blinded to treatment group. Speech outcomes included nasalance, velopharyngeal orifice opening, and speech intelligibility. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant between-group differences found for facial attractiveness ratings. However, patients in either group who had involvement of the orbital rim or the orbital rim and zygoma were rated as significantly less attractive than those without such involvement. With respect to speech outcomes, the control group (ie, nasopharynx) had smaller velopharyngeal orifice areas than the obturator group; however, this was not clinically significant as scores in both groups were within normal limits. In conclusion, this study found no differences between surgical reconstruction or prosthodontic intervention of maxillary defects when facial attractiveness was assessed by naive raters and speech outcomes were assessed using objective measurements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".