The effects of power toothbrushing on periodontal inflammation in a Canadian nursing home population: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: ) in nursing home (NH) residents over a 6-week period, compared to usual care (UC), would reduce periodontal inflammation. METHODS: In this repeated measures single-blinded randomized controlled trial, 59 residents of one NH in Winnipeg, Canada, were randomized to receive either twice-daily tooth brushing with a rotating-oscillating power toothbrush (PB) or UC by caregivers. Consent was obtained from residents or their proxies. Participants had some natural teeth, periodontal inflammation, non-aggressive behaviour, no communicable diseases, were non-smokers and non-comatose. Outcomes were measured at baseline and 6 weeks, which included: inflammation (MGI, Lobene), bleeding (PBI, Loesche) and Plaque (Turesky). Comparisons of group changes in outcomes were analysed using an ANOVA with a repeated measure. RESULTS: Of 59 original study participants, one withdrew, one died prior to study commencement and three died before study completion. All oral parameters improved significantly for the remaining 54 residents over time (P<.0001), with no differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that it is possible for caregivers to improve periodontal inflammation of residents over a 6-week period. Despite no significant group differences, periodontal inflammation of all study participants improved significantly, particularly in the reduction of bleeding, a direct measure of periodontal inflammation, which is a unique finding.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".