Articulation, oral function, and quality of life in patients treated with implant overdentures in the mandible: A prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modifications of facial and oral structures affect aesthetic appearance, orofacial functions, and have impact on quality of life. PURPOSE: This study determined alterations of articulation, oromyofunctional behavior, and Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) in patients replacing complete removable dentures by implant retained overdentures in the mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one fully edentulous patients received mandibular overdenture retained on a bar connecting two titanium dental implants. Patients were evaluated after receiving a new set of fully removable dentures (stage 1), after surgery during provisionalization on healing abutments (stage 2), and after final connection to the bar (stage 3). Assessments were taken by speech therapists and included evaluation of: articulation (picture naming and reading); oromyofunctional behavior; OHRQoL (OHIP-14 questionnaire), and overall satisfaction and speech (VAS). To measure changes over time, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank-test and McNemar test was used. RESULTS: There was no significant impact of the treatment on speech nor on the results of oromyofunction. In stage 1, patients had different kinds of articulation errors (mean:1.21) which evolved to 0.71 and 0.67. In stage 3, especially problems with the /s/ sound are seen in 37% (7/19) of the participants. Results of OHRQoL and satisfaction reveal that the average of satisfaction with oral health evolved from 67% to 63% and finally 78%. OHIP-14 total score was 17.4/56 in stage 1, remained unchanged in stage 2 and evolved in stage 3 to 9.8/56 (P: .010). This indicates improvement. Satisfaction with speech evolved significantly from 68% pretreatment to 82% in stage 3 (P: .013). CONCLUSION: Despite existing articulation and oromyofunctional disorders after treatment, people are very satisfied with their OHRQoL and their speech. Impact of mandibular denture wearing on OHRQoL declines once connected. It's important to inform patients that speech and oromyofunctional disorders may occur during treatment where especially the /s/ sound is vulnerable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".