Relationship between alexithymia and patients' satisfaction in anterior esthetic restorations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To analyze the relationship between alexithymia and patients' satisfaction under the condition of good quality in the esthetic characters. Methods 211 patients requiring single anterior tooth restoration were treated with all ceramic crowns which were assessed by the good and moderate degrees. Patients received 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and a visual analogue scale assessing patients' satisfaction (VAS). Chi-squared analysis, correlation analysis and the general linear modeling procedure were calculated for TAS total and factors scores according to age, gender and dichotomized satisfaction. Results 85. 3% patients belonged to the high satisfaction group(VAS scores 80 or higher) and 7.1% reported alexithymia ( total score 61 or higher). No difference across gender was observed in the prevalence of alexithymia and satisfaction. Age was correlated with the TAS scores ( r=0.629) and satisfaction scores ( r= -0.429). According to dichotomized satisfaction,TAS total and factor 1&2 scores were significantly different. When adjusting for the effect of age,the association was existed between TAS scores and san'sfaction( r= -0.68). Conclusion Alexithymia has effect on dental satisfaction. Key words: Alexithymia ; Dentistry ; All-ceramic restoration ; Satisfaction ;
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".