Clinical evaluation of air polishing with erythritol powder followed by ultrasonic calculus removal versus conventional ultrasonic debridement and rubber cup polishing for the treatment of gingivitis: A split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical efficacy in the short-term resolution of gingivitis of a novel protocol involving full-mouth erythritol powder air polishing followed by ultrasonic calculus removal. METHODS: Forty-one healthy patients completed the study. Following a split-mouth design, quadrants 1-4 and 2-3 were randomly allocated to receive air polishing followed by ultrasonic calculus removal (A+US) or traditional full-mouth ultrasonic debridement followed by polishing with a rubber cup and prophylactic paste (US+P). Bleeding on probing (BoP) and plaque index (PI) were collected at baseline and 2 and 4 weeks. Moreover, the residual plaque area (RPA), treatment time and patient comfort/satisfaction were evaluated at the end of the treatment. RESULTS: Both treatments showed a significant reduction in BoP and PI. At 4 weeks, A+US seems to reach a statistically significant lower BoP (8.7% [6.9; 10.9] vs. 11.6%[9.3; 14.4], p < 0.0001) and PI (10.7% [8.9; 13.0] vs. 12.3% [10.2; 14.9], p = 0.033). Moreover, A+US treatment time lasted on average 9.2% less than US+P (p < 0.0001) and was the preferred treatment for a significantly higher number of patients (73.2% vs. 17.1%, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The A+US protocol is suitable for the short-term resolution of plaque-induced gingivitis.
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) | 0.005 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".