Comparing Laser and Scalpel for Soft Tissue Crown Lengthening: A Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crown lengthening procedure is aimed at exposure of sufficient crown structure accomplished by a gingivectomy, an apically positioned flap with osseous resection or the use of lasers. Our present clinical study is aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of a diode laser for functional crown lengthening procedure and to compare it with the conventional procedure using the scalpel. Fourteen patients including males and females, aged 20- 40 years were recruited and divided into two groups to undergo crown lengthening either with the scalpel or the laser. The data obtained was analyzed for intergroup comparison with an Unpaired t-test and intragroup comparison was determined by ANOVA.Analysis of the intergroup results for pain showcased that there was a significant difference (P<0.002) in VAS scores of pain on the 3rd day as well as on the 7th day (P<0.044), with patients in the laser group displaying significantly lower VAS scores compared to the scalpel group, but when both the groups were compared on the 10th day, there was no significance (P<0.14).Intergroup comparison of the mean VAS scores for discomfort observed on the 3rd, 7th and the 10th day of the study suggested that there was a significant difference of the VAS scores of discomfort on the 3rd and the7thdays, with the patients in the laser group displaying significantly lower VAS scores for discomfort compared with the scalpel.Observations from the study emphasize that laser can be a safe and effective alternative to traditional crown lengthening performed with the scalpel.
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 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 | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".