Within‐patient evaluation of chewing efficiency and maximum bite force of conventional dentures, fixed prostheses, and milled bar overdentures used for All‐on‐4 implant rehabilitation of atrophied mandibular ridges: A short‐term randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This crossover study aimed to evaluate chewing efficiency and maximum bite force (BF) of conventional dentures, fixed prostheses, and milled bar overdentures (MO) used for All-on-4 implant rehabilitation of atrophied mandibular ridges. METHODS: Sixteen edentulous participants with resorbed mandibular ridges received new conventional dentures (CD, control). Four implants were inserted after 3 months in the mandible using the All-on-4 protocol and loaded immediately with acrylic prosthesis. In a crossover manner, each patient had either fixed restoration (FR, 12 occlusal units) or MO (14 occlusal units) randomly in a crossover study design. Chewing efficiency was evaluated using the mixing ability test. The hue deviation (HD) of two-colored gum was calculated after being chewed for 5, 10, 20, 30, and 50 masticatory cycles. Maximum BF was evaluated using a BF device. HD and BF were measured after using CD, FR, and MO prostheses. RESULTS: For all groups, the highest HD (i.e., the lowest chewing efficiency) was noted with 5 strokes, followed by 10, 20, 30 strokes, and the lowest HD (i.e., the highest chewing efficiency) was noted with 50 strokes. For all number of chewing strokes, CD showed the highest HD, then FR, and MO recorded the lowest HD. The highest BF was observed with MO, then FR, and the lowest BF was noted with CD. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this short-term investigation, both FR and MO used for All-on-4 implant rehabilitation of patients with resorbed mandibular ridges improve masticatory efficiency and maximum BFs compared to CD. However, MO was associated with significantly higher chewing efficiency and maximum BFs than fixed prosthesis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".