Dental hygiene in maintaining a healthy joint replacement: a survey of Canadian total joint replacement patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dental procedures and their role in prosthetic joint infections remain controversial. Recent literature shows that total joint replacement in patients with good oral hygiene are less like to develop an prosthetic joint infection. The purpose of this study was to assess dental hygiene practices and knowledge of its importance in maintaining joint health among patients who have had a total joint replacement, and to understand, based on patient report, the extent to which current clinical practice guidelines have been adopted into everyday practice. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study of dental hygiene practices was conducted on patients who have had total joint replacement presenting for their 6 wk postoperative follow-up. We hypothesized that patients would have good dental hygiene habits, but limited knowledge of oral hygiene and prosthetic joint infection risk. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and benchmarked against population data from the Oral Health Module of the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS). Results: The study cohort included 453 patients (mean age 65.9±9.9 yr) with total joint replacements. Our findings demonstrated that although 86% had a cleaning within 12 mo, 5% did not visit a dentist. While 95% brush and 46% floss daily, 4% did not brush and 21% did not floss which is comparable to CHMS population data. Only 49% had been informed of dental hygiene in reducing prosthetic joint infection risk. Conclusions: Patients who have had total joint replacement practice good dental hygiene overall; however, communication regarding its importance in preventing prosthetic joint infection remains inconsistent. Healthcare practitioners must uniformly educate patients who have total joint replacement on the importance of good dental hygiene in maintaining joint health.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".