The effect of a streptococci containing probiotic in periodontal therapy: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the adjunctive effects of a Streptococcus oralis KJ3, Streptococcus uberis KJ2 and Streptococcus rattus JH145 containing probiotic tablet after scaling and root planing (SRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight periodontitis patients were included in this double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. After root planing, patients used either a placebo or a probiotic tablet twice a day for 12 weeks. The pocket probing depth (primary outcome measure), bleeding on probing and relative attachment levels were measured at baseline, 12 and 24 weeks. At baseline, 4, 8, 12 and 24 weeks, microbiological sampling was performed and plaque and gingival indices were recorded. RESULTS: The primary and secondary outcome measures were significantly (p < 0.05) improved at the 12- and the 24-week evaluation in both groups. However, no significant inter-group differences could be detected at any time point, except from the % of sites with plaque that were significantly lower in the probiotic group than in the control group at the 24-week evaluation. In addition, at the 12-week time point, the salivary Prevotella intermedia counts were significantly lower in the probiotic group. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were detected when comparing the adjunctive use of a placebo or the investigated streptococci containing probiotic tablet after SRP. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02403960.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".