A placebo‐controlled multi‐centred evaluation of an anaesthetic gel (Oraqix<sup>®</sup>) for periodontal therapy
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
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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