Efficacy of copper sulphate on Candida albicans on heat-polymerized acrylic resin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ageing of population is increasing, and a great percentage of these patients wear removable prostheses, and can suffer denture stomatitis, a condition that has been associated with candidiasis. Aims: To evaluate in vitro the effectiveness of Copper Sulfate against Candida albicans in samples of heat-polymerized acrylic resin, compared to nystatin, sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine. Materials and Methods: Initially, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of copper sulfate for Candida albicans was determined by microdilution. Then, 54 resin samples were divided into 6 treatment groups corresponding to Nystatin 100.000 UI, Sodium Hypochlorite 0.5%, chlorhexidine 0.12%, Copper Sulfate 4.7µg/ml, Copper Sulfate 9.4µg/ml and physiological saline solution, in which samples were submerged for 6 hours. Resin samples were then washed and cultured on solid media at 37°C for 72 hours. The number of colony-forming units was determined using a Quebec colony counter. The statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Copper sulfate at a concentration of 9.4μg/ml presented a similar effectiveness as the other control products regarding the reduction in the number of colonies of Candida albicans post-treatment. Conclusion: The effectiveness of copper sulfate against Candida albicans on acrylic resin was similar to that of nystatin, sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".