Effect of potassium nitrate and fluoride on carbamide peroxide bleaching.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect on tooth sensitivity when potassium nitrate and fluoride were added to a 10% carbamide peroxide bleaching gel. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Seventeen maxillary and four mandibular arches were bleached using the at-home bleaching technique. The bleaching treatment consisted of the simultaneous use of a 10% carbamide peroxide gel containing 3% potassium nitrate wt/vol and 0.11 fluoride ion wt/vol on one side of the midline and a 10% carbamide peroxide gel only (control) on the other side of the midline for 14 nights. A visual analog scale for each side of the dental arch was used by the patients to assess tooth sensitivity and tooth whitening. Preoperative and postoperative photographs were also taken. RESULTS: The addition of potassium nitrate and fluoride significantly decreased the total tooth sensitivity reported by the patients. The addition did not significantly change the whitening efficacy of the carbamide peroxide bleach. CONCLUSION: A 10% carbamide peroxide bleaching gel containing potassium nitrate and fluoride produced less tooth sensitivity than did the control bleaching gel during a 2-week at-home bleaching treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".