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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".