A retrospective study on patient satisfaction and Oral Health‐Related Quality of Life with fixed 4‐ or 6‐implant supported prostheses over 3‐7 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare patients' satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in edentulous patients treated by All-on-4 and All-on-6 implant-supported fixed prostheses rehabilitation over 3-7 years. METHODS: All patients (n = 125) were divided into short-term (3-5 years, n = 71) and long-term (5-7 years, n = 54) follow-up groups. Patients' satisfaction was examined in a cross-sectional survey. OHRQoL and psychological impact were evaluated using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). Comparison of All-on-4 and All-on-6, including OHIP values, satisfaction scores, treatment duration and complications, were analyzed using the Chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Potential influence of patient-related factors on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed via the Mann-Whitney U test, the Kruskal-Wallis test and multiple regression analyses. Power calculation was conducted in R Studio. RESULTS: Both All-on-4 and All-on-6 follow-up groups showed high scores in total satisfaction and PROMs, including chewing comfort, aesthetics, cleanability, and stability, with no significant difference (p > 0.05). Meanwhile, no significant differences were observed in the OHIP scores between two groups in both follow-up durations (p > 0.05). However, in patients with 3-5 years follow-up, All-on-4 group had significantly lower phonetic satisfaction scores than All-on-6 group (p < 0.05). Additionally, during both follow-up periods, All-on-4 patients exhibited notably superior psychological effect in contrast to All-on-6 patients (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Edentulous patients treated by four or six implant-supported fixed prostheses showed same high satisfaction in oral health-related quality of life in both 3-5 years and 5-7 years follow-ups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".