Antiplaque and antigingivitis effectiveness of a hexetidine mouthwash
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the antiplaque/antigingivitis efficacy of a hexetidine-containing mouthwash. METHODS: This examiner-blind, parallel group, controlled clinical study examined the effectiveness of a hexetidine (0.1%) mouthwash both in inhibiting the development of supragingival plaque and in reducing gingivitis. One hundred and thirty-four adult subjects completed the 2-week experimental gingivitis model study. Following baseline examinations, which included plaque index, modified gingival index and gingival bleeding index, subjects received a full dental prophylaxis. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three mouthwashes (hexetidine 0.1%, chlorhexidine 0.12% (positive control) or a 5% hydroalcohol negative control) and commenced three times daily supervised rinsing as their sole method of oral hygiene. All indices were rescored after 2 weeks. RESULTS: Compared to the negative control group, the hexetidine group demonstrated a statistically significant inhibition and reduction of supragingival plaque and gingival inflammation with reductions of 6.3%, 33.5% and 56% for gingivitis, plaque and gingival bleeding, respectively. The results of the chlorhexidine group were used to validate the study. CONCLUSION: The study confirms the efficacy of a hexetidine rinse in reducing supragingival plaque and gingival inflammation.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".