Periodontal evaluation of different toothbrushing techniques in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Plaque control is the major consensus during orthodontic treatment to prevent the occurrence of cavities and periodontal inflammation. The mechanic resource of greater effectiveness and frequent use in this control is the oral hygiene. The tooth brushing techniques most used in orthodontic patients are: Ramfjord's method, Modified Stillman technique and Bass method. OBJECTIVE: Since control studies evaluating the effectiveness of usual tooth brushing techniques do not show clear advantage, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three brushing methods, through periodontal clinical parameters of patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. METHODS: Thirty patients were selected, with ages between 14 and 22 years old, with fixed orthodontic appliances. After basic periodontal treatment the following factors were evaluated: 1--Plaque index and 2--Gingival index and each patient was randomly included in one of the three selected groups according to the brushing technique: Group 1--Scrubbing technique; Group 2--Modified Stillman technique and Group 3--Bass technique. Patients were evaluated for 9 months. RESULTS: The results showed a significant reduction of clinical parameters by the end of this period, however there was a very significant reduction of Gingival index on group 3 (13.6%) when compared to the other groups. CONCLUSION: Thus, it can be suggested that the Bass technique can be effective on the reduction of periodontal clinical parameters of Plaque index and Gingival index in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".