Feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of non-invasive application of chlorhexidine dental coating for seniors in the community: a randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Poor oral health (caries and periodontal disease) in seniors is a health risk with minimal preventive care approaches evaluated. The objectives of this study were to: i) document the oral health status of a sample of Canadian seniors; and then ii) evaluate feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of non-invasive application of chlorhexidine for preventive oral health in the community. Methods: Dental examinations of 105 Ottawa seniors were followed by a randomized controlled study of 55 seniors with ³ 16 natural teeth and ³ 12 sites of bleeding on probing (BOP). Four treatments of either a chlorhexidine 10% w/v (active) or purified water (placebo) were applied over a 9-week period. Study sites included a hospital, seniors’ community centre, medical practice and long-term care facility. Treatments were applied by a hygienist or a nurse in 10-15 minutes, without dental cleaning or scaling. The primary endpoint was change in oral inflammation (BOP). Results: The sample had more decayed, missing or filled teeth (DMFT) and more periodontal disease than reported in the 2007-2009 Canada Health Measures Survey. BOP was reduced almost 2-fold more in the active group compared to placebo although significant in both groups (active: 7.91%, p<0.001; placebo: 4.1%, p=.018). The difference between groups in reducton of BOP failed to reach significance (p = 0.06) likely due to early stoppage of recruitment. Conclusion: A four-dose application of chlorhexidine significantly decreased oral inflammation as measured by BOP. The program of non-invasive preventive care in community settings is feasible, clinically impactful, and well received.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".