Do Implant Retained Prostheses Improve the Quality of Life of Patients with Extraoral Maxillofacial Defects - A Systematic Review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence available regarding patient satisfaction and quality of life assessment in patients with extraoral maxillofacial prostheses. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to understand the impact of extraoral implant retained prosthesis in improving the quality of life in patients with extraoral maxillofacial defects/abnormalities. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed of nine electronic databases up to August 2022, which yielded three articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria. The study characteristics and findings were extracted, and the included studies were assessed for quality. RESULTS: Three cohort studies were selected. Despite the lack of uniformity in the quality of life instruments, there was a general trend in improvement in the quality of life for patients with implant retained extraoral prostheses. The studies were also deemed to be of high quality on assessment. CONCLUSION: Given the limitations of this systematic review, there exists limited evidence indicating that implant prostheses may enhance the quality of life for individuals with extraoral maxillofacial defects or abnormalities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".