Patients undergoing periodontal procedures commonly use dietary supplements: A consideration in the design of intervention trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Diet and dietary supplement use are associated with periodontal health while a cause and effect relationship is less clear. Although associations with specific nutrients and supplements suggest a potential benefit to healing of periodontal tissues after periodontal procedures, this study determined if patients undergoing periodontal surgery currently take dietary supplements to gage whether patients may accept use of such supplements as a potential intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who were undergoing implant placement or soft tissue graft surgery completed a questionnaire indicating any dietary supplements they consumed. Patient demographics, such as age, sex, and smoking status, were gathered from patients' charting records. RESULTS: Data on dietary supplement usage were collected from 221 patients. More than half (64.7%) the population surveyed reported using one or more dietary supplements. The most commonly used dietary supplements were vitamin D (31%), multivitamin (28%), and B-complex (17.2%). Females were more likely to be taking calcium, vitamin B12, and magnesium than males. Adults, aged 51 years and older, were more likely to be taking dietary supplements than their younger counterparts. They were also more likely to be taking four or more supplements than those under the age of 50 years. There was no association between supplement use and sex, but when the number of different supplements being used was assessed, females were more likely than males to be taking four or more different supplements. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the study population is already taking dietary supplements as part of their routine. Based on this study, future studies to determine if supplement usage, potentially at levels higher than current levels of intake, can be used to maintain or promote periodontal health seem highly feasible.
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 | 0.290 | 0.352 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".