Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Oral Hygiene Aids in Maintaining Periodontal Health in Patients With Gingivitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Gingivitis is a common oral health condition characterized by inflammation of the gingiva, which, if left untreated, can progress to more severe forms of periodontal disease. Effective oral hygiene practices play a crucial role in managing gingivitis, but the comparative efficacy of different oral hygiene aids remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of various oral hygiene aids in maintaining periodontal health in patients with gingivitis, considering gender and the degree of gingivitis as potential influencing factors. Methods A total of 120 participants with gingivitis were enrolled in this study. The participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups, each utilizing a different oral hygiene aid: Group A (toothbrush), Group B (electric toothbrush), Group C (brushing along with the use of an interdental brush), and Group D (brushing along with the use of a water flosser). All participants received toothpaste for use with their respective oral hygiene aids. Periodontal health parameters, including plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and bleeding on probing (BOP) score, were assessed at baseline and after a specified duration of oral hygiene intervention. Also, the microbial count for Streptococcus, Actinomyces, Porphyromonas, Fusobacterium, and Veillonella species was evaluated. Results No significant differences in periodontal health outcomes were observed between males and females in any of the oral hygiene aid groups. Similarly, no significant differences were found among the mild, moderate, and severe gingivitis groups within each oral hygiene aid group. The microbial count also has no statistical significance except for streptococcus species. These findings indicate that the efficacy of the tested oral hygiene aids was comparable across genders and different degrees of gingivitis. Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that the tested oral hygiene aids were effective in maintaining periodontal health in patients with gingivitis, irrespective of gender and the degree of gingivitis. These results have implications for oral healthcare professionals in their recommendations to patients regarding oral hygiene practices. However, it is important to consider the limitations of this study, including the relatively small sample size and the specific oral hygiene aids tested.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".