Comparative effectiveness of an essential oil mouthrinse and dental floss in controlling interproximal gingivitis and plaque.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of rinsing with an essential oil-containing antimicrobial mouthrinse with that of dental floss in reducing interproximal gingivitis and plaque in an unsupervised 6-month clinical trial designed in accordance with ADA Acceptance Program Guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 319 qualifying subjects, aged 18-63, were randomized into one of three groups: essential oil mouthrinse (Listerine Antiseptic); dental floss (Reach Dental Floss); or a negative control rinse. At baseline, subjects received a complete oral soft tissue examination and scoring of the Modified Gingival Index (MGI), modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (PI), and bleeding index (BI). Following a complete dental prophylaxis and receiving flossing or rinsing instructions, subjects started on their respective regimen. They continued on their assigned regimen unsupervised at home, in addition to toothbrushing, and were reexamined at 3 and 6 months. The treatment groups were compared with respect to baseline demographic and clinical variables. The primary efficacy variables were mean interproximal MGI and PI at 6 months. Intergroup differences at 3 and 6 months were tested using a one-way analysis of covariance model with treatment as a factor and the respective baseline value as the covariate. In addition, the essential oil mouthrinse was compared to floss for interproximal gingivitis reduction using "at least as good as" statistical criteria. RESULTS: 301 subjects were considered evaluable. There were no statistically significant differences among the 3 groups at baseline, with the exception of the essential oil mouthrinse group having significantly fewer AfroAmerican subjects than the other two groups. For the interproximal MGI, the essential oil mouthrinse and flossing were both significantly more effective than the negative control (P < 0.001) at 3 and 6 months. The essential oil mouthrinse was shown to be "at least as good as" dental floss for the control of interproximal gingivitis. For the interproximal PI, the essential oil mouthrinse was significantly more effective than the negative control at 3 and 6 months (P < 0.001) while flossing was significantly more effective than the negative control at 3 months (P < 0.05) but not at 6 months. The essential oil mouthrinse was significantly more effective than floss (P < 0.001) at both these time periods.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".