Effects of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on the treatment of severe cases of periodontitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO2) as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) in the treatment of severe cases of chronic periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 20 patients diagnosed with severe generalized chronic periodontitis (pockets>7mm) with bleeding on probing, SRP was rendered in all pockets. Additionally, five consecutive hyperbaric sessions were administered in 10 patients after random allocation (SRP + HBO2). Clinical parameters were assessed at baseline up to six months: plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing depth, clinical attachment level and benzoyl-DL-arginine-naphthylamide (BANA) test. RESULTS: SRP + HBO2 resulted in greater probing reduction and attachment gain than SRP alone three months after treatment (p<0.001). The BANA test was negative after one week only for sites in the SRP + HBO2 group (p<0.05). However, SRP + HBO2 failed to show a significant difference from SRP group after 3 months, where all BANA sites became negative (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that hyperbaric oxygen therapy had a short-term beneficial effect on pocket reduction and bacterial elimination, and may be considered a potential adjunct therapeutic option to improve the clinical outcomes of scaling in severe cases of chronic periodontitis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".