Appointments Needed for Complete Denture for Frail Older Adults Residing in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frail older adults who reside in long-term care (LTC) facilities face multiple barriers in receiving dental care. In edentulous LTC patients, the fabrication of complete dentures (CDs) can present challenges, leading to an increase in procedural or post-insertion appointments. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to document the number of fabrication and post-insertion follow-up appointments for CDs in frail older adults residing in LTC facilities. Data were collected from electronic patient records (AxiUm) and the Index of Clinical Oral Disorder in Elders (CODE) software utilized by the University of British Columbia Geriatric Dentistry Program from 2002 to 2018. A total of 362 CDs were fabricated between 2002 and 2018 in 272 patients. The mean number of visits required was 4.13 and 4.32, with standard deviations (Std) of 1.45 and 1.25 needed to fabricate maxillary CDs and mandibular CDs, respectively. The mean number of follow-up visits was 1.04 for maxillary dentures and 1.09 for mandibular dentures, with an Std of 1.25 for both, similar to the results obtained for adult patients in community dental clinics. Several factors were found to be associated with an increased number of CD fabrication and follow-up visits. Pre-operative assessment of the patient's cognitive/physical status and intra-oral condition may indicate the estimated time needed to fabricate CDs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".