The efficacy of selective calculus ablation at 400 nm: comparison to conventional calculus removal methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A desired outcome of scaling and root planing is the complete removal of calculus and infected root tissue and preservation of healthy cementum for rapid healing of periodontal tissues. Conventional periodontal treatments for calculus removal, such as hand instrument scaling and ultrasonic scaling, often deeply scrape the surface of the underlying hard tissue and may leave behind a smear layer. Pulsed lasers emitting at violet wavelengths (specifically, 380 to 400 nm) are a potential alternative treatment since they can selectively ablate dental calculus without ablating pristine hard tissue (i.e., enamel, cementum, and dentin). In this study, light and scanning electron microscopy are used to compare and contrast the efficacy of in vitro calculus removal for several conventional periodontal treatments (hand instruments, ultrasonic scaler, and Er:YAG laser) to calculus removal with a frequency-doubled Ti:sapphire (λ = 400 nm). After calculus removal, enamel and cementum surfaces are investigated for calculus debris and damage to the underlying hard tissue surface. Compared to the smear layer, grooves, and unintentional hard tissue removal typically found using these conventional treatments, calculus removal using the 400-nm laser is complete and selective without any removal of pristine dental hard tissue. Based on these results, selective ablation from the 400-nm laser appears to produce a root surface that would be more suitable for successful healing of periodontal tissues.
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".