A conventional microwave oven for denture cleaning: a critical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Denture cleaning should be quick and easy to perform, especially in long-term care facilities. The lack of proper oral hygiene can put older adults at higher risk from opportunistic oral infections, particularly fungal. As an alternative to regular brushing, the use of a microwave oven has been suggested for cleaning and disinfecting dentures. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the use of a conventional microwave oven for cleaning and disinfecting complete dentures. METHODS: A brief literature search focused on papers dealing with microwave therapy for denture cleaning through PubMed Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process, and Scifinder Scholar. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-seven manuscripts published in English with full text were found, and 28 were accepted and discussed in the light of the advantages and disadvantages of the use of conventional microwave oven for cleaning and disinfecting complete dentures. CONCLUSIONS: There was no standardisation for microwave use for denture cleaning. Manual cleaning still seemed to be the optimal method for controlling fungal infection and denture stomatitis. However, such a daily routine appeared to be underused, particularly in long-term care facilities.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".