Efficacy of “Oil Pulling” on Gingival Health and Biofilm Accumulation in a Group of Young Adults: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aims The aim of this pilot study was to assess changes in gingival bleeding and biofilm accumulation in young adults undergoing oil-pulling treatment together with standardized oral hygiene practices, compared to a control group of patients that did not undergo oil pulling but maintained the standard oral hygiene practices outlined in the study. Materials and methods The experiment was designed as a randomized, two-way, single-blind, crossover with a 2-month washout period between two, 10-day experimental periods. A total of 28, randomly selected dental students who met the inclusion criteria were assessed for gingival bleeding and biofilm on six teeth before and after rinsing with sesame oil for 10 minutes per day, for a period of 10 days. The mean difference between the test and control group's reduction in scores was analyzed using the paired t-test. The level of significance was set at ? (alpha) = 0.05. Results There were no statistically significant differences on plaque biofilm accumulation and bleeding when compared with the control group. There was a higher reduction in gingival bleeding scores (albeit not statistically significant) among those who used sesame oil compared to those who did not. Conclusion Based on the current study, it appears that oil pulling for 10 minutes and for a period of 10 days using sesame oil has no significant benefit over brushing and flossing alone, on a sample of 28 dental students. How to cite this article Rayner S, Herrick T, Chiesa C, Hoover J, Karunanayake C. Efficacy of “Oil Pulling” on Gingival Health and Biofilm Accumulation in a Group of Young Adults: A Pilot Study. Int J Experiment Dent Sci 2016;5(2):113-117.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".