Anti-gingivitis and Anti-plaque Efficacy of an Oral Hygiene System: Results From a 12-Week Randomized Controlled Trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the antigingivitis and antiplaque efficacy of an oral hygiene system versus a control regimen. This was a single-center, randomized, examiner-blind, two-treatment, 12-week parallel group study in adults with evidence of gingivitis and plaque. Eligible subjects were stratified by baseline gingivitis and plaque scores, number of bleeding sites, and tobacco use and randomized to one of two treatment groups: (1) oral hygiene system (test group) involving a novel smart-connected Oral-B® iO oscillating-rotating (O-R) electric toothbrush, 0.454 percent stabilized stannous fluoride (SnF2) dentifrice, 0.07 percent cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) rinse, and floss, or (2) control regimen involving a manual toothbrush and 0.243 percent sodium fluoride dentifrice. Gingivitis (modified gingival index, gingival bleeding index) and plaque (Rustogi modification of the navy plaque index) were assessed at Baseline, Week 1, and Week 12.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".