Effectiveness of the Lorodent Probiotic Lozenge in Reducing Plaque and Streptococcus mutans Levels in Orthodontic Patients: A Double-Blind Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orthodontic patients are at a significant risk for oral diseases due to increased plaque accumulation and oral bacterial dysbiosis. We aimed to determine the efficacy of the commercially available Lorodent Probiotic Complex at reducing plaque accumulation and Streptococcus mutans bacterial levels in adolescent orthodontic patients. Sixty adolescents undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment for a minimum of 6 months were recruited in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. They received either Lorodent probiotic lozenge (intervention, n = 30) or placebo lozenge (control, n = 30) orally every day for a 28-day administration period. Participants were assessed at four appointments (T1–T4) over a total of 56 days. Compliance and lozenge satisfaction were monitored. Saliva samples and supragingival plaques were collected for evaluation of S. mutans levels. Clinical assessment using a Plaque Index (PI) was used. Compliance with lozenge intake of all participants was over 90%. There was no significant change in the PI and composite PI scores in both placebo and probiotic groups at each time frame (all p > 0.05) or the relative S. mutans DNA levels in the saliva and plaque between the probiotic and placebo groups. The findings of high compliance and satisfaction with the probiotic lozenges combined with the study's rigorous design offer a baseline for subsequent testing of further potential probiotics (of varying formulations, concentrations), especially in adolescents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".