Perioperative booklet for orthognathic patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study compared the effectiveness of an informational booklet on postoperative self-care, knowledge, anxiety and symptoms related to orthognathic surgery.Methods: This study is a randomized, single-blind, controlled clinical trial. This study was carried out from August 2013 to August 2015 and included 40 participants (20/group). The intervention group had routine postoperative surgeon guidance, and received a self-care booklet. Booklet information was explained by a nurse. The control group received only routine surgeon guidance. Knowledge and anxiety were compared pre- and postoperatively. Postoperative outcomes included self-care (oral hygiene, mobility and sensitivity, hydration of the lips, edema, and sleeping and breathing conditions), nutrition (eating ability and change in bodyweight), and pain (treatment required and a visual analog scale). Data were analyzed by general linear mixed models and mixed-effects models.Results: Knowledge was higher in intervention group compared to control group (p < .001). Anxiety assessment displayed no difference between groups. The intervention group had more halitosis (p = .003) and greater bodyweight loss (p = .002).Conclusions: The booklet increased knowledge of postoperative self-care, but did not lower anxiety. Halitosis and weight loss were higher in the intervention group, however, most outcomes were similar between groups.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".