Successful Periodontal Maintenance of a Case With Papillon‐Lefévre Syndrome: 12‐Year Follow‐Up and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various approaches to treating the periodontal condition associated with Papillon-Lefèvre syndrome have been reported. These include oral hygiene instruction, use of mouthrinses, frequent debridement, multiple antibiotic regimens, periodontal surgery, extraction of hopeless teeth, and extraction of all deciduous teeth. Because Papillon-Lefèvre syndrome is rare, most publications are case reports, and very few document long-term successful treatment of the periodontal condition. METHODS: In 1986, a 3.5-year-old Indo-Canadian male was diagnosed with Papillon-Lefèvre syndrome and began periodontal treatment. Initial therapy consisted of debridement every 3 weeks, a 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse, 2 regimens of metronidazole, and oral hygiene instruction for his parents. After 10 months it became apparent that the treatment was having little beneficial effect, since the periodontal destruction continued and teeth 51 and 61 exfoliated. At age 4, all remaining deciduous teeth were extracted and complete dentures inserted for the following 2-year edentulous period; then a 3-month maintenance schedule was maintained. RESULTS: The patient is now 17 years old and all his adult teeth are present with the exception of the third molars. His oral hygiene varies between moderate and good, with his most recent plaque score at 80% effectiveness. There are no probing depths greater than 4 mm, with the exception of the distal of the lower second molars where opercula are present. CONCLUSIONS: Extraction of all the deciduous teeth followed by a period of edentulousness may partially explain the fact that there has been no recurrent attachment loss in the permanent teeth up to age 17. Other explanations are discussed as part of the literature review of Papillon-Lefèvre syndrome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".