An evaluation of 0.2% hyaluronic acid gel (Gengigel ®) in the treatment of gingivitis: a clinical & microbiological study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Hyaluronic acid is a glycosaminoglycan with anti-inflammatory & anti edematous properties. This study is seeking to ascertain whether Hyaluronic acid gel formulation is clinically and microscopically effective in treatment of gingivitis. METHODS: In longitudinal, randomized, and placebo-controlled clinical trial, 105 patients with chronic plaque induce gingivitis were randomly divided into three groups; negative control group, placebo control group and test group. Patients were instructed to apply gel on inflamed gingiva twice daily in addition with routine oral hygiene maintenance. The clinical parameters Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Index(GI) and Papilla Bleeding Index (PBI) were determined at intervals of 1 week, 2 weeks and 4 weeks from baseline, microbiological parameters were monitored at the interval of 4 weeks from baseline. RESULTS: An improvement of all clinical variables was observed (p<0.05) for all treatment modalities. Clinically, There is significant difference (p<0.05) for GI & PBI in test group as compared to other groups, but reduction in PI was non-significant. In negative control and placebo control groups, the difference between clinical parameters was non-significant. Statistically significant (p<0.05) reduction in percentage of anaerobic gram negative bacilli and relative increase of gram positive coccoid cells was seen in all treatment groups at 4 weeks as compared to baseline. However, results were not statistically significant (p>0.05) in pair wise comparison in between groups. CONCLUSION: Local application of 0.2 % HA gel adjunct to non surgical periodontal treatment provided a significant improvement in clinical parameters than placebo control and negative control groups. Microbiologically experimental group does not showed any spastically significant results.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".