Prevention and Management of Cheek and/or Tongue Biting Related to Posterior Implant‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses (ISFDPs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the loss of several adjacent posterior teeth, bone resorption occurs that can lead to a marked occlusal discrepancy between arches. This discrepancy may originate from the more pronounced resorption at the facial portion of the alveolar bone crest, often resulting in a more palatal implant position. Therefore, establishing normal overbite and cusp-fossa relation may become difficult, namely causing inappropriate crown contours and emergence profiles. This manuscript describes a technique in which a different occlusal configuration is given to solve some problems that edge-to-edge occlusal configuration produces. For instance, patients may suffer from cheek and/or tongue biting after the delivery of a maxillary posterior implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis resulting in an edge-to-edge occlusal configuration. In instances of severe maxillary resorption in the posterior buccal zone, it is recommended to consider a distinct cross-bite occlusion and by this prevent the well-known discomfort and clinical signs associated with both an edge-to-edge interarch relationship or a so-called "stretched" transversal overbite.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".