Effectiveness of the Lorodent Probiotic Lozenge in Reducing Plaque and S. Mutans Levels in Orthodontic Patients: a Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: To determine the efficacy of the Lorodent probiotic complex at reducing plaque accumulation and Streptococcus mutans levels in adolescent orthodontic patients. Methods: 60 adolescent orthodontic patients were randomized in a double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial to receive either the Lorodent probiotic or placebo lozenge orally every day for a 28-day administration period. Plaque scores, supragingival plaque samples and saliva samples were assessed over a total of 56 days. Results: Participants receiving the placebo lozenge had a greater improvement in plaque scores compared to those receiving the Lorodent probiotic lozenge. There were no significant changes in S. mutans and total lactobacilli levels between the probiotic and placebo groups. Lozenge consumption compliance was over 90% and no adverse events were observed in the probiotic group. Conclusions: The Lorodent probiotic lozenge did not decrease plaque or S. mutans levels in adolescent patients undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment. Funding: Ontario Centres of Excellence.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".