Efficacy of ozone therapy in dentistry with approach of healing, pain management, and therapeutic outcomes: a systematic review of clinical trials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ozone therapy has emerged as a promising treatment modality in dentistry due to its antimicrobial and healing properties. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the recent clinical trials on ozone therapy in dentistry and its impact on therapeutic outcomes. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus from January 2018 to December 2024, identifying studies that investigated the use of ozone in dental applications. The findings demonstrated that ozone therapy is effective in improving periodontal health, healing soft tissue after dental implant surgery, and reducing postoperative discomfort. The combination of scaling and root planing with gaseous ozone therapy showed superior periodontal response rates. The use of ozone during endodontics procedures resulted in reduced post-treatment pain, while ozonated materials showed promise in the management of dentinal hypersensitivity. However, it is not recommended in restorative dentistry due to potential adverse effects on dentinal bond strength. The findings of this systematic review supported the integration of ozone therapy into dentistry as an adjunctive therapy. More research is needed to elucidate its mechanisms, optimize application techniques, and evaluate long-term outcomes for patient safety and treatment effectiveness.
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.
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 | 0.045 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it