Effects of Two Different Methods of Non‐Surgical Periodontal Therapy on Patient Perception of Pain and Quality of Life: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of two modes of delivery of non-surgical periodontal therapy on patient experience of pain and oral health-related quality of life (OHQoL). METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with mild to moderate periodontitis received non-surgical therapy using a piezo-ceramic device (n = 30) or curets (n = 29). Periodontal examinations were carried out at baseline and 8 weeks following therapy. Subjects completed the short-form McGill pain questionnaire, visual analog scales regarding sensitivity and satisfaction, and the United Kingdom OHQoL questionnaire (OHQoL-UK) at baseline, treatment, and 1, 4, and 8 weeks. RESULTS: Both groups showed improvements in clinical parameters with no significant differences between the groups. Pain scores and OHQoL-UK showed no significant differences between the groups. After treatment, OHQoL-UK scores improved from an initially negative effect on quality of life to a level of no effect. Differences in sensitivity scores between the groups were statistically significant at 1 week (P = 0.011), 4 weeks (P = 0.005), and 8 weeks (P = 0.025), favoring the use of the piezo-ceramic device. CONCLUSIONS: In mild to moderate periodontitis, therapy had a small positive impact on pain and OHQoL-UK scores. These data support the concept that periodontitis may negatively affect a patient's quality of life and that treatment may improve it.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".