MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225296470 · doi:10.1111/cid.13094

A comparative evaluation of neurophysiological activity, active tactile sensibility and stereognostic ability of complete denture prosthesis, and implant‐supported prosthesis wearer—A pilot study

2022· article· en· W4225296470 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bappaditya Bhattacharjee, Ritu Saneja, Atul Bhatnagar, Ashish Verma, Romesh Soni, Ankita Singh, Pavan Kumar Dubey

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTemporomandibular Joint Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndian Council of Medical Research
KeywordsProsthesisImplantDentistryMedicineDental prosthesisSomatosensory systemOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The study aimed to evaluate the effect of implant-supported prosthesis in completely edentulous participants in terms of osseoperception ability, neural activity, and stereognostic ability in comparison to removable prosthetic options. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total sample of 18 patients, irrespective of gender and age were allocated into three groups according to the three-treatment protocol (upper and lower complete denture, upper complete denture opposing lower implant-retained overdenture, implant-supported fixed prosthesis in both arches). Four weeks after completion of the treatment procedure active tactile sensibility (ATS) was checked by using varying thicknesses (12, 40, 80, 100, 200 μ) of articulating foils and papers. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was performed to record neurophysiological activity in cerebral cortex in all the participants. Various forms of test pieces (heat cure acrylic resin) were used to evaluate stereognostic ability. Data regarding the neurophysiological activity were analyzed by using Krushkal-Wallis test and p ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Data from stereognostic ability test procedure and ATS were compared by using chi-squared test and p ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Statistically significant difference was found in between the articulating foils in terms of true negative responses as the foil thickness increased in participants wearing complete denture in both the arches (p = 0.004) and implant-supported fixed prosthesis in both the arches (p = 0.010). Participants in implant-supported fixed prosthesis group showed significantly more activation in primary motor cortex (right side), somatosensory cortex (left side), angular gyrus (both sides), temporal lobe (left) compared to other groups. No significant difference found in thalamus and premotor cortex region in between the participants of different groups. No statistically significant difference found in between the groups in terms of true responses identifying correct shapes. Mean number of correct responses in stereognostic ability test were 4.16 (83.33%), 3.5 (70%), 3.83 (76.66%) for participants of complete denture group, upper complete denture opposing lower implant retained overdenture group, and implant-supported fixed prosthesis group, respectively. CONCLUSION: Primary motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, and other regions of brain were diffusely activated in participants wearing implant-supported fixed prosthesis in both the arches. Less number of false responses were recorded in participants of implant-supported fixed prosthesis group and upper complete denture opposing lower implant-retained overdenture group in ATS test compared to participants wearing complete denture in both the arches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.433
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.122 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicTemporomandibular Joint DisordersFrench-language works237,207