Masseter muscle activity of conventional denture, fixed prosthesis, and milled bar overdenture used for All‐on‐4 implant rehabilitation: A within‐subject study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: to examine the electromyographic (EMG) activity of the masseter muscles in patients with conventional dentures and compare it to EMG activity of fixed prosthesis, and milled bar overdentures used to rehabilitate mandibular atrophied ridges according to the All-on-4 concept. METHODS: Eighteen edentulous subjects with atrophied mandibles received complete dentures (CD, control). After 3 months, four implants were installed between the mental foramina according to the "All-on-4" protocol and loaded immediately. After osseointegration, fixed prostheses (FPD) or milled bar overdentures (MBO) were given to the patients in random order. Primary (amplitude), and secondary (chewing rate, time of the masticatory cycle, time of masticatory burst, and masticatory time) outcomes were evaluated 3 months after using CD, FPD, and MBO. The evaluations were made during mastication of carrot (hard) and cake (soft) foods. RESULTS: FPD and MBO were associated with a significantly higher (amplitude, time of masticatory cycle, and time of masticatory burst), and significantly lower (chewing rate and masticatory time) compared with conventional dentures. Primary and secondary outcomes did not differ between FPD and MBO. Carrot had significantly higher amplitude, chewing rate, time of masticatory burst, and masticatory time than cake, while cake had a significantly higher time of masticatory cycle than carrot. CONCLUSIONS: Within limitations of this study, milled bar overdentures for All-on-4 implant rehabilitation of atrophied mandible is not less efficient than fixed prostheses in terms of electromyographic activity of the masseter muscle. Both prostheses significantly improve muscle activity, chewing rate, time of masticatory cycle, time of masticatory burst, and masticatory time compared with conventional dentures.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".