Intra‐operative application of chlorhexidine gel reduces bacterial counts in internal implant cavity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prospective clinical trial was conducted to assess the bacterial-inhibitory potential of 1% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel in the internal cavity of implant screw holes, when utilized at the time of implant placement. A total of 40 Straumann (S) and Nobel Biocare (N) implants were divided into test (ST or NT; implant + CHX gel) and control (SC or NC; implant only) groups. Total numbers of colony-forming units (CFUs ml(-1) ) were assessed at a minimum of 3 months postsurgery by aerobic and anaerobic culture. A set of specimens was stained with Gram stain. The mean sample-collection time was 110 d for the test population and 98 d for the controls. The use of 1% CHX gel significantly reduced bacterial counts in both the ST and NT samples by over three logs compared with controls. No statistical differences in the numbers of CFUs ml(-1) were evident between aerobic and anaerobic cultures. Differences in the numbers of CFUs ml(-1) between ST and NT groups were not statistically significant. Microscopic analysis showed mainly Gram-positive coccoid species in most samples.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".