Microwave disinfection of dentures for the treatment of oral candidiasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thirty-four institutionalized subjects (mean age, 81 years) with a positive test for C. albicans pseudohyphae were randomly assigned to test (microwave) and control (soak) groups. All subjects received the same course of topical antifungal medication (Nystatin 300,000 IU lozenges 3x daily for 14 days). Subjects in the microwave treatment group had their maxillary denture scrubbed and then microwaved for one minute at 850 Watts. This procedure was repeated three times. For subjects receiving the standard denture soak treatment, the nursing staff was instructed to disinfect the maxillary dentures in 0.2% chlorhexidine digluconate solution overnight for 14 days, changing the solution every two days. Infestation of the tissue surface of the maxillary denture with C. albicans progressively took place over the three-month period following treatment such that 8 (53%) of the microwaved dentures and 16 (84%) of the soaked dentures demonstrated pseudohyphae as determined by Gram stain. Infection of the soft tissues with the hyphal form of C. albicans also increased with time. After three months, one (8%) patient in the microwave group and 12 (63%) patients in the denture soak group demonstrated pseudohyphae on the cytological smears. Re-infestation of the denture surface and infection of the adjacent soft tissue were delayed dramatically in patients whose dentures were microwaved compared with those whose dentures were disinfected by being soaked in a chlorhexidine solution. However, microwave treatment is not recommended for all dentures and should be used with caution.
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 | 0.000 | 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".