Effects of loss of second molar on masticatory ability and oral health-related quality of life: A comparative cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Previous studies have reported on changes in masticatory ability and patient satisfaction after restoration of missing second molars. However, there has been no evaluation of the masticatory ability and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of patients who did not replace their second molar. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the effects of the loss of a second molar on masticatory ability and OHRQoL. METHODS: Twenty-two subjects who had lost a second molar (the missing group) and another 22 subjects with complete dentition (the control group) were enrolled. In the evaluation of masticatory ability, an objective test by measurement of the mixing ability index (MAI) with the occlusal contact area and a subjective test by questionnaire on food intake ability (FIA) were used. In the assessment of the OHRQoL and patient satisfaction, the Korean Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14K) questionnaire was employed. RESULTS: The inter-group comparison revealed the control group to have significantly higher mean scores of MAI, FIA, key FIA and hard FIA. Although insignificant, the control group also had a larger mean occlusal contact area and a lower mean OHIP-14K score. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, a missing second molar could lead to diminished objective and subjective masticatory ability with poorer OHRQoL. In conclusion, replacement with a suitable implant prosthesis should be performed after the loss of a second molar.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".