Function, Quality of Life, and Food Intake in Patients Without Second Molar Implants: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The necessity of a second molar region implant for Kennedy Class II classification of unilateral partially edentulous arches remains controversial. This study aims to compare the effects of implant treatment in the first and second molar regions, providing a basis for planning implant treatments for Kennedy Class II dentition. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 16 patients with implant therapy up to the first molar and 16 patients treated up to the second molar. Bite force, masticatory function, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), and food and nutrient intakes were evaluated as outcomes. RESULTS: While the two groups showed improvements in occlusal force and masticatory function with implant treatment, the increase was significantly greater with implant treatment extending to the second molar. The improvement in OHRQoL was comparable between both groups. Furthermore, the increases in vegetable, dietary fiber, and vitamin K intakes were significantly greater in the implant treatment group extending to the second molar. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of OHRQoL, implant treatment up to the first molar may be sufficient.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".