The Esthetic and Functional Outcomes of Full Mouth Rehabilitation Performed Using the Hobo Twin-Stage and Pankey-Mann-Schuyler Philosophy – A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Full mouth rehabilitation (FMR) is a complex treatment modality aimed at restoring esthetics, function, and occlusal stability in patients with severely worn dentition. Among the various philosophies, the Pankey-Mann-Schuyler (PMS) and the Hobo Twin-Stage philosophy are the most widely recognized. While both have been used extensively, their comparative outcomes remain unclear. Materials and Methods: An electronic and manual search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from January 1960 to October 2018. A total of 5 clinical studies (3 RCTs, 2 CCTs) comprising 169 patients were included. Data on esthetic outcomes (Pink Esthetic Score [PES], White Esthetic Score [WES]) and functional outcomes (occlusal harmony, masticatory efficiency, phonetic comfort assessed via VAS) were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool for RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for CCTs. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Esthetics: Hobo Twin-Stage philosophy demonstrated significantly higher PES (Mean Difference ≈ +1.3 to +1.4; p < 0.01) and WES (Mean Difference ≈ +1.2 to +1.6; p < 0.01) compared to PMS across all studies. Function: No statistically significant difference was observed in functional outcomes (VAS mean difference ≈ +0.2 to +0.4; CIs crossed 0).Funnel plot analysis showed low risk of publication bias. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the available evidence, the Hobo Twin-Stage philosophy provides superior esthetic outcomes compared to the PMS philosophy, while both approaches yield comparable functional results. Choice of philosophy should be tailored to patient expectations, clinical expertise, and available resources.
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 | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".