Comparison of the Impact of Two Interdental Cleaning Devices on the Reduction of Bleeding Around Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of water flossing to traditional flossing in lowering the bleeding on probing (BOP) index around dental implants. Methods and Materials: This single-center, examiner-masked research enrolled patients with implants and randomly allocated them to one of two groups. The research analyzed the effectiveness of manual toothbrushes when used with either string floss or a water flosser. Results: After 30 days, the main result was a decrease in BOP occurrence. At the outset, neither group had noticeably higher rates of bleeding than the other. While only six of 20 implants in the floss group demonstrated a decrease in BOP after 30 days, 18 of 20 implants in the water flosser group did. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that the use of water flossers was associated with much less bleeding than that of string floss. The researchers think that water flossing might be a useful addition to the maintenance of dental implants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".