Sociocultural aspects and Streptococcus spp isolation from dental biofilm: comparison between public health system and private dental practice patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The different sociocultural contexts and lifestyles may influence oral health. To evaluate the interference of these factors, we conducted a quantitative-qualitative cross-sectional study. The research was carried out in a private dental office, in an urban area, and in the Family Health Unit (USF), in a rural area. 100 patients, 50 of each location, participated in the research. A semi-structured questionnaire covering sociocultural profile, oral hygiene habits, drug consumption, use of medicinal plants, and antibiotics usage was applied. Also, laboratory tests to evaluate the tendency to have dental decay and Streptococcus sp colony counting were performed. There was no significant difference between patients in the two groups regarding gender, race, marital status, type of residence, number of residents in the same household, and type of employment. Private clinic participants were more prone to consuming alcohol and/or cigarettes and reported brushing their teeth more often. In general, participants from the public health system showed less Streptococcus biofilm colonization. There was no association between salivary acidity and higher biofilm bacterial density. The usage of medicinal plants was more evident in the public service. In conclusion, the lifestyle of dental patients prevailed over the context of dental care in the characteristics related to oral colonization by Streptococcus spp.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".