The effectiveness of 10% chlorhexidine varnish treatment on dental caries incidence in adults with dry mouth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study compared a 10% chlorhexidine varnish treatment with placebo and sham treatments for preventing dental caries in adult patients with xerostomia (dry mouth). DESIGN: The study was a multicentred, randomized, parallel group, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: All examinations and procedures were performed at Tuft's University, Boston, MA, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC or the University of Western Ontario, London, ON. SUBJECTS: Subjects were adults with recent or current dental caries experience, high salivary levels of cariogenic microorganisms and low salivary flow rates. RESULTS: 236 subjects completed at least one post-treatment examination. There were 697 new carious lesions diagnosed, 446 (64%) located on coronal surfaces and 251 (36%) located on root surfaces. The mean attack rate was 0.23 surfaces/100 surfaces at risk. A treatment difference observed between the Active and Placebo groups was statistically significant for root caries increment (p = .02) and total caries increment (p = .03). A treatment difference observed between the Active and Sham groups was not statistically significant for coronal, root or total caries increment. Analysis of variance of treatment group differences was performed using mutans streptococci counts, salivary flow rates, age, sex, caries prevalence, medications, time to first event and early withdrawal as co-variables. These factors did not meaningfully alter the findings. CONCLUSIONS: The difference between the 10% chlorhexidine varnish and placebo treatments is considered to be highly clinically significant for root caries increment (41% reduction) and for total caries increment (25% reduction) but only for coronal caries increment (14%).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".