Effectiveness of prosthodontic intervention in patients with Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background: Oral health plays a crucial role in maintaining the general health of an individual. Parkinson disease (PD) has known to disrupt the oral functions. Prosthetic rehabilitation can be done in these patients. However, there is scarcity of literature to assess the effectiveness or impact of rehabilitation with prosthesis either fixed or removable on various oral functions and quality of life (QoL) or satisfaction of PD patients. The purpose of this systematic study was to assess the effectiveness of prosthodontic rehabilitation in patients with PD. Materials and Methods: The literature search was conducted in the PubMed and CINAHL database for the articles till 2024 in English language. An exploration of gray literature was also included through Google Scholar. Manual search in the references of the selected articles was also done for relevant articles. The methodological quality assessment of cohort studies was done using Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment form for Cohort Studies (NOS). Assessment of cross-sectional studies was done using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (tool) and aassessment of case series was done using JBI critical appraisal tool for case series. Results: A total of 6 articles were selected from PubMed, 1 from CINAHL, and 2 from Google Scholar. Four articles studied the masticatory efficiency. Oral perception and motor ability were analyzed in two articles. Oral Health QoL was assessed in four articles. One article studied the electromyographic activity. Conclusion: Based on this systematic review, it can be suggested that prosthetic rehabilitation using fixed or removable prosthesis offer potential benefits in PD patients improving the oral functions and QoL. However, there is a dearth of long-term research on evaluation of impact of prosthetic rehabilitation in improving the oral function and QoL of PD patients. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42024570296.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".