A placebo‐controlled multi‐centred evaluation of an anaesthetic gel (Oraqix<sup>®</sup>) for periodontal therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Six Canadian dental schools investigated the ability of a thermosetting gel containing 25 mg/g prilocaine and 25 mg/g lidocaine as active agents to produce analgesia in periodontal pockets utilizing a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study consisted of 130 patients, each of whom received the active or placebo gel in periodontal pockets in one quadrant of the mouth for 30 s prior to periodontal debridement (scaling and root planing). Pain was measured using both a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and a Verbal Rating Scale (VRS). RESULTS: The median VAS pain score for the patients treated with the anaesthetic gel was 5 mm (range 0-85 mm) as opposed to 13 mm (range 0-79 mm) in the placebo-treated patients (P=0.015). There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients reporting no or mild pain (78% and 76% for the anaesthetic gel and placebo, respectively). No significant differences were seen in patient demographics, or mandible versus maxilla. CONCLUSIONS: The VAS pain scores showed that the anaesthetic gel 5% was statistically more effective than the placebo in reducing pain during periodontal debridement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".