Bleeding in Dental Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excessive bleeding complicates surgery and may result in a higher risk of morbidity in dentistry. Although multiple evidence-based clinical guidelines regard dental interventions as minor procedures, with low risk of bleeding, patients on anticoagulation therapy are at elevated risk of bleeding complications, during and following dental surgeries. In many instances, discontinuation or altering of anticoagulation can be avoided through the use of local hemostatic agents during or after the procedure (or both), while patients are therapeutically continued on their prescribed anticoagulant doses. In addition, patients with diagnosis of hereditary bleeding disorders, such as von Willebrand disease and hemophilia, and individuals without any history of bleeding complications can present the need for the use of topical hemostatic agents. In this chapter, we discuss the mechanisms of action, practical applications, effectiveness, and potential negative effects of biosurgical topical hemostatic agents, such as gelatin sponges, collagen, oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC) and oxidized cellulose, fibrin sealants, flowables, adhesives, and topical thrombin in dental surgery.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.016 |
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".