Comparative evaluation of bite pressure and electromyographic activity of temporalis and masseter muscles between osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic patients after prosthetic rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Should screening for osteoporosis be essential before rehabilitating edentulous patients with complete dentures?Objectives: The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of low bone mineral density (osteoporosis) on bite pressure and electromyographic activity (EMG) of masseter and temporalis muscles in edentulous patients after rehabilitation with complete dentures.Material and methods: Eighty (44 non-osteoporotic and 36 osteoporotic) edentulous subjects, aged 50-70 years, visiting the department for complete dentures rehabilitation were recruited based on selection criteria.All subjects were rehabilitated with maxillary and mandibular complete dentures.After 1 month of adjustment period, evaluation of EMG of masseter and temporalis muscles and bite pressure was done.Data were obtained, statistically analyzed, and compared for osteoporotic and normal bone mineral density groups using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA) version 24.0 statistical analysis software.Results: Maximum and average bite pressure was significantly lower for osteoporotic subjects.Mean maximum bite pressure applied in complete denture wearing osteoporotic patients was 25.21 MPa, and for normal bone mineral density subjects, it was 29.94 MPa.Surface EMG activity amplitude for masseter (p = 0.005) and temporalis (p = 0.03) muscles was also found to be significantly lower in osteoporotic patients.Conclusions: Osteoporosis has significant adverse effects on masticatory functions of complete denture wearers, such as neuromuscular and chewing pressure components.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".