Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Toothbrushing is the most commonly used, most-effective and safest method of plaque removal.But, regular toothbrushing may not be feasible under some circumstances.This study aimed to compare the efficacy of Rolly brush and Pro-Expert Oral B toothbrush for plaque removal in 8 to 12-year-olds.Materials and Methods: Twenty children between 8 to 12 years who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this cross-over study.Scaling and root planing were performed in the first session, and the baseline plaque index (PI) was recorded 24 hours later (no oral hygiene during 24 hours) using Turesky modification of Quigley-Hein index and Tepe solution.Next, 10 children were provided with chewable Rolly brush while the remaining 10 were provided with a manual toothbrush and toothpaste (Pro-Export Oral-B) and were instructed to brush their teeth using the modified Stillman technique.The PI was then measured again.After a two-week wash-out period, the PI was decreased to zero and the group assignments were switched.The PI was then measured again.Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's Exact test.Results: The overall mean PI in the Rolly brush group was significantly higher than that in Oral-B toothbrush group (P=0.001).The difference in PI of the anterior maxilla was not significant between the two groups (P=0.188).The mean PI of the posterior region was significantly higher in Rolly brush group (P=0.0001).Conclusion: The Rolly brush can be used as an aid for oral hygiene but cannot replace manual toothbrushing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.957 | 0.959 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".