Clinical and patient‐centered outcomes post non‐surgical periodontal therapy with the use of a non‐injectable anesthetic product: A randomized clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of different full-mouth decontamination (FMD) protocols on the effectiveness of an intrapocket anesthetic gel in periodontal maintenance patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing the periodontal maintenance program and with the need for FMD participated in this study. Patients were randomly allocated to non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) with either a preparatory 15-day decontamination phase, including chlorhexidine mouth rinse and domiciliary hygiene instructions (modified FMD: test group), or without it (FMD: control group). In both groups, NSPT was performed with the aid of a non-injectable anesthetic gel. Clinical and patient-related outcomes were recorded during a 6-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Sixty patients completed the 6-month study. Both groups experienced relevant clinical improvements after NSPT, but the test group showed a significant change in periodontal parameters already after the initial 15-day preparatory period, and overall significantly better results in periodontal outcomes when compared with the control group at the last 6-month follow up: the gingival index was 2.07 ± 1.25 in the control group and 1.13 ± 0.51 in the test group. Less pain and dental-related anxiety were perceived by patients in the test group showing a 6-month mean visual analog scale of 2.13 ± 1.25 in the control group and 1.13 ± 0.83 in the test group. CONCLUSION: The present study suggested that the modification of the standard FMD could improve the clinical efficacy of non-injectable anesthetic, along with patients' short- and mid-term appreciation and compliance.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".