A systematic review of professional mechanical plaque removal for prevention of periodontal diseases
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the effect of professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) on the prevention of periodontal diseases. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and cohort studies from 1950 to October 2004. Screening and data abstraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Critical appraisal of studies was based on objective criteria and evidence tables were constructed. RESULTS: From 2179 titles and abstracts, 132 full-text articles were screened and 32 studies were relevant. Evidence exists that PMPR in adults, particularly in combination with oral hygiene instruction (OHI), may be more effective than no treatment judged by surrogate measures. The evidence for a benefit of PMPR+OHI over OHI alone is less clear. The optimum frequency of PMPR has not been investigated although more frequent PMPR is associated with improved markers of health. The strength of evidence for these results ranges from weak to moderate due to risk of bias, inconsistent results, lack of appropriate statistics and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be little value in providing PMPR without OHI. In fact, repeated OHI might have a similar effect as PMPR. Some forms of PMPR might achieve greater patient satisfaction. There is little difference in beneficial or adverse effects of different methods of PMPR.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 it