Predictors of Tooth Loss in Patients Wearing a Partial Removable Dental Prosthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The partial removable dental prosthesis (PRDP) is used widely to replace missing teeth, but it can disturb the ecology of the mouth. In this retrospective cohort study, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between tooth loss and the type of edentulous spaces in participants wearing PRDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were selected from patients who were treated consecutively with PRDPs between January 2003 and December 2006 by undergraduate dental students at the University of British Columbia and attended the clinic for at least 5 years following placement of the PRDP. Clinical records were analyzed for 50 men and 52 women aged 19 to 85 years at baseline, before placement of the PRDP (mean age: 63.2 years). Baseline data were obtained from the records on missing teeth and edentulous spaces, and thereafter data were collected on teeth lost over the following 5-year period. Baseline data on age, sex, occlusal contacts, number of dental rests for the dentures, carious teeth, gingival attachment loss, and teeth with endodontic fillings were also obtained. RESULTS: The presence at baseline of teeth with endodontic fillings significantly (P < .05) increased the prediction of tooth loss over the 5 years, but the type of edentulous space did not. CONCLUSION: The risk of tooth loss over a 5-year period was higher in the presence of endodontically treated teeth, but no higher in participants wearing PRDPs with distally extended edentulous spaces rather than tooth-bounded edentulous spaces.
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 | 0.001 | 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".