Enhanced plaque removal to improve gingival health: 3-month randomized clinical study of the effects of baking soda toothpaste on plaque and gingivitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness in reducing plaque and gingivitis of a fluoride toothpaste with 20% baking soda and a fluoride toothpaste control. METHODS: 159 subjects, who met the entry criteria, participated in this single-center, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group clinical study. Gingival Index (MGI), Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), and Plaque Index (PI) were assessed after 4, 8, and 12 weeks use of the assigned test or control toothpaste. After 12 weeks, participants resumed 4 weeks of their customary oral hygiene after which they were re-evaluated using the same measures. RESULTS: Both toothpastes statistically significantly reduced MGI, GBI, and PI versus baseline at all-time points. Brushing with the 20% baking soda toothpaste statistically significantly reduced MGI, PI, and GBI compared to the control toothpaste at all time points. After 12 weeks, the reductions in MGI, PI, and GBI were 12.6%, 9.6%, and 44.2%, respectively. After the 4-week customary oral hygiene period, the benefits of the study period had begun to diminish, but statistically significant reductions in MGI and GBI for the test versus control were still evident. This 3-month clinical study shows that brushing with fluoride toothpaste containing 20% baking soda reduces dental plaque and concurrently reduces gingival inflammation and bleeding compared to toothpaste with fluoride alone. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Fluoride toothpaste with 20% baking soda has the potential to offer multiple oral health benefits when used as an adjunct to regular tooth brushing and, therefore, may be confidently recommended to patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".