MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403151418 · doi:10.1016/j.identj.2024.08.017

Effectiveness of Preprocedural Mouthwashes: A Triple-Blind Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial

2024· article· en· W4403151418 on OpenAlexaff
Shan Huang, Leung Yiu Yan, Prasanna Neelakantan, Chan Kwok Hung, Leung Joy Ka Yi, Hung Fan Ngai

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Dental Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Research and COVID-19
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialDentistrySingle blindRandomized controlled trialDermatologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Bioaerosols generated during dental treatment are considered to be potentially carriers of infectious respiratory pathogens. The use of preprocedural mouthwashes has been suggested to reduce microbial load prior to dental surgery procedures. However, limited evidence on the effectiveness of preprocedural mouthwashes regarding mitigating respiratory pathogens exists. The aim of this clinical trial is to determine and compare the effectiveness of 3 preprocedural mouthwashes recommended by the Department of Health of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the mitigation of respiratory pathogens during dental care in pandemic times. METHODS: In all, 228 participants were block-randomised to three groups based on preprocedural mouthwash used: povidone-iodine, hydrogen peroxide, and chlorhexidine digluconate. Participants, operators, and assessors were blinded to the assigned mouthwashes (triple-blind). Saliva was assessed for the presence of a number of respiratory pathogens (19 viruses including SARS-CoV-2). Changes in the prevalence and mean number of "any" pathogen present following mouthwash use were determined. RESULTS: Overall, the prevalence of any detected respiratory viral pathogens in the preprocedural saliva was 3.5% as compared to the postprocedural saliva: 1.3% (P = .034). The mean (SD) number of viruses was significantly lower following preprocedural mouthwash use, from 0.04 (0.18) to 0.01 (0.11) (P = .025). No significant differences were observed in the downward change (∆) of any detected virus (prevalence) (P = .155) or in the reduction of the mean number (∆) of any detected virus in the postprocedural saliva compared to preprocedural saliva of participants with respect to mouthwash used (P = .375). CONCLUSIONS: The practice of using preprocedural mouthwash, as recommended by the government of Hong Kong, was effective in reducing the number of respiratory pathogens present during dental aerosol-generating treatment. This study lends support for official policy on use of preprocedural mouthwashes, which has significant implications for practice and policy during pandemics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Dental JournalSame topicDental Research and COVID-19French-language works237,207