The Comparison of Chlorhexidine Solution and Swab With Toothbrush and Toothpaste Effect on Preventing Oral Lesions in Hospitalized Patients in Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maintaining of oral hygiene has been known as one of the basic tasks of nurses working at intensive care unit. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of chlorhexidine solution with toothbrush in prevention of oral lesions or ulcers in the different parts of the mouth. METHODS: In this clinical trial study, research Society included patients hospitalized with endotracheal tube since the arrival time in intensive care unit. In this study, 30 patients were selected with target-based approach and equally divided into two groups through the permutation blocking method for oral care toothbrush and toothpaste and using chlorhexidine and swab. The modified form of Beck Oral Assessment Scale (BOAS) and MPS were used to obtain needed information. Data were analyzed by means of R software (version 3.0.2) and also multiple logistic regressions in the confidence level of 95%. RESULTS: This study indicated an association between using toothbrush and the oral health level (OR: 1.52). In different parts of the mouth, there was no difference between two groups in prevention of lesions in gums, lips and tongue while, this was significant in relation to plaque, mucus and teeth with an odd ratio of 3.94 for teeth and 2.75 for mucus . In comparison, there was an association between implying chlorhexidine and saliva health level. (OR: 2.046). CONCLUSION: This survey showed that using toothbrush has a noticeable impact on declining oral lesions in varied parts of the mouth.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".