Chlorhexidine and Preservation of Sound Tooth Structure in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Trial to Enhance Elderly Teeth Health (TEETH) was designed to test the impact of regular rinsing with a 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) solution on tooth loss, and the causes of tooth loss (caries, periodontal disease and trauma) were also investigated. This paper reports on the effectiveness of a 0.12% CHX solution for controlling caries using a tooth surface (coronal and root) survival analysis. A total of 1,101 low income elders in Seattle (United States) and Vancouver (Canada), aged 60-75 years, were recruited for a double-blind clinical trial and assigned to either a CHX (n = 550) or a placebo (n = 551) mouth rinse. Subjects alternated between daily rinsing for 1 month, followed by weekly rinsing for 5 months. All sound coronal and root surfaces at baseline were followed annually for up to 5 years. At each follow-up examination, those tooth surfaces with caries, restored, or extracted were scored as 'carious'. The hazard ratio associated with CHX for a sound surface to become filled, decayed, or extracted was 0.87 for coronal surfaces (95% confidence interval: 0.71-1.14, p = 0.20) and 0.91 for root surfaces (95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.14, p = 0.41). These findings suggest that regular rinsing with CHX does not have a substantial effect on the preservation of sound tooth structure in older adults.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".