A randomised clinical trial on the effect of oral antimicrobial sprays in institutionalised elders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of chlorine dioxide, chlorhexidine and placebo sprays in improving oral hygiene among institutionalised elders. BACKGROUND: Available evidence suggests that oral sprays may be an effective alternative delivery method for plaque control; however, few studies have evaluated antimicrobial agents other than chlorhexidine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 228 elders across 11 nursing homes in Hong Kong were recruited into the clinical trial. Participants were randomly allocated into one of the following groups: 0.1% pH-balanced chlorine dioxide spray, 0.2% chlorhexidine spray or sterile water spray (placebo control), once daily. Dental plaque, gingival bleeding and other clinical oral health outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Participant acceptability of the interventions was assessed at the end of the clinical trial. RESULTS: Review assessments were conducted for 135 elders at 6 months. Significantly greater reductions in plaque index scores were observed with the chlorhexidine spray (0.4) and chlorine dioxide spray (0.3) than the placebo spray (0.1). While significant reductions in gingival bleeding scores were observed within the chlorhexidine (7.4), chlorine dioxide (7.5) and placebo (5.3) sprays after 6 months, change scores were not significantly different between groups. Significantly greater increases in the levels of staining were observed in the chlorhexidine spray group (-0.1) than the chlorine dioxide (0.0) and placebo spray (0.0) groups. CONCLUSION: Antimicrobial sprays were shown to be effective among institutionalised elders. Chlorine dioxide spray showed equivalent effects on dental plaque and gingival bleeding relative to the chlorhexidine spray over a 6-month period.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".