Effect of sodium lauryl sulfate on recurrent aphthous stomatitis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present systematic review sought to evaluate the effects of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS)-free compared to SLS-containing dentifrices on (Recurrent) aphthous stomatitis (RAS) in patients with this condition. Cochrane, Medline (PubMed) and Embase databases, and some trial registries were searched through December 2017. There was no language, nor publication year restrictions. We included double-blinded randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of dentifrices with and without SLS on RAS in humans. Data extraction was compliant with PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. PROSPERO 2018:CRD42018086001. Four trials were included in this review (all crossover studies; n = 124 participants) and two contributed to the main meta-analysis based on the random-effect model. SLS-free dentifrice, when compared to SLS-containing statistically significantly, reduced the number of ulcers, duration of ulcer, number of episodes, and ulcer pain. Sensitivity analysis of the four studies as parallel-group trials shows a consistent direction of effect in favor of SLS-free dentifrice usage. In conclusion, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the eligible trials for this review showed that use of SLS-free consistently reduced all four parameters of ulcers measured. The available evidence suggests that patients with RAS may benefit from using SLS-free dentifrices for their daily oral care. However, future well-designed trials are still required to strengthen the current body of evidence.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".