Efficacy of an LED toothbrush on a <i>Porphyromonas gingivalis</i> biofilm on a sandblasted and acid-etched titanium surface: an <i>in vitro</i> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: attached to sandblasted and acid-etched titanium surfaces. METHODS: The study included a control group, a commercial photodynamic therapy (PDT) group, and 3 test groups (B, BL, and BLE). The disks in the PDT group were placed in methylene blue and then irradiated with a diode laser. The B disks were only brushed, the BL disks were brushed with an LED toothbrush, and the BLE disks were placed into erythrosine and then brushed with an LED toothbrush. After the different treatments, bacteria were detached from the disks and spread on selective agar. The number of viable bacteria and percentage of bacterial reduction were determined from colony counts. Scanning electron microscopy was performed to visualize bacterial alterations. RESULTS: <0.05). Scanning electron microscopy showed that bacterial cell walls were intact in the control and B groups, but changed after commercial PDT and LED exposure. CONCLUSIONS: .
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".