Low Concentration H <sub>2</sub> O <sub>2</sub> /TiO_N in Office Bleaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized double-blinded clinical trial was to test the efficacy and tooth sensitivity promoted by the use of an in-office 15% H(2)O(2) bleaching agent containing nanoparticles of TiO_N photocatalyzed with LED/laser light (HP15) and a control of 35% H2O2 (HP35). METHODS: Forty healthy volunteers, both sexes, aged 18 to 25 yr, were randomly distributed in 2 groups: HP15 (n = 20) was treated in 3 sessions of 48 min each, and HP35 (n = 20) was treated in 3 sessions of 45 min each. The efficacy (E) was evaluated by ΔE values measured via reflectance spectroscopy. The tooth sensitivity (S) was analyzed by visual analog scale (low, average, high, very high). The absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat index were calculated. The data were analyzed by mixed repeated measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni-correction t test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: For the efficacy, significant differences were found for number of bleaching sessions (p = .0001; [Formula: see text] = 0.73 and π = 1.000) and for the interaction of number of sessions and bleaching protocols (p = .0001; [Formula: see text] = 0.319 and π = 1.000. The tooth sensitivity level showed significant differences only between the bleaching protocols. Absolute risk reduction calculated was 52% and number needed to treat, 1.92. CONCLUSIONS: The bleaching agent with the lower concentration (HP15) promoted lower levels of tooth sensitivity and presented greater efficacy compared to the control (HP35) in patients between 18 and 25 yr old. The limitation of short-term evaluation did not provide information about the longevity of the tooth bleaching (Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry Re Bec no. U1111-1150-4466).
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 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".