Evaluation of the efficacy of subgingival irrigation in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic periodontitis otherwise indicated for periodontal flap surgeries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In certain medically and physically compromised; and terminally ill patients, periodontal surgery may not be feasible. They need special attention and assistance for their daily plaque control regimens for the management and maintenance of periodontal conditions. Subgingival irrigation home care devices with antiplaque agents may serve as useful tools in such specific patient populations. AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate of the efficacy of sub-gingival irrigation in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic periodontitis otherwise indicated for periodontal flap surgeries. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Randomized comparative parallel group interventional clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty adults with moderate-to-severe periodontitis, divided inot Group A and B, were subjected to the use of subgingival home irrigations using 0.06% chlorhexidine (CHX) and mouth-rinsing with 15 ml of 0.12% CHX twice daily, respectively after Phase I therapy. Clinical parameters, i.e., gingival index, oral hygiene index simplified, and bleeding on probing scores were assessed at baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks' postphase I therapy, whereas clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), and stain assessment at baseline and 12 weeks following Phase I therapy. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA version 15.0 for Windows). RESULTS: = 0.034) of lingual surface staining with greater staining with CHX mouth rinsing. CONCLUSION: The adjunctive use of subgingival home irrigations using 0.06% CHX has a promising potential to maintain the oral health and results in lesser staining compared to CHX mouth rinsing. The regimen may further obviate the need of periodontal surgery in medically compromised subjects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".