A comparative investigation to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an alcohol-free CPC-containing mouthwash as compared to a control mouthwash in controlling dental plaque and gingivitis: a six-month clinical study on adults in San Jose, Costa Rica.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an antiplaque alcohol-free mouthwash containing 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) and 0.05% sodium fluoride (NaF), as compared to a control mouthwash containing only 0.05% NaF, in controlling established dental plaque and gingivitis after three and six months of product use. METHODS: This was a single-center, parallel-group, two-cell, double-blind, randomized clinical study. Prospective adult male and female subjects from San Jose, Costa Rica reported to the clinical facility having refrained from all oral hygiene procedures for 12 hours, and from eating, drinking, or smoking for four hours prior to their visit. Qualifying subjects who presented with Gingival Index scores (Löe and Silness Index) of at least 1.0 and Plaque Index scores (Turesky Modified Quigley-Hein Index) of at least 1.5 were allowed to participate in this study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups according to their baseline gingival and plaque scores. In the first treatment group (Test), subjects used an alcohol-free mouthwash containing 0.075% CPC and 0.05% NaF, whereas in the second treatment group (Control), subjects used a mouthwash containing only 0.05% NaF. Gingivitis and plaque assessments, and examinations of oral hard and soft tissues were conducted after three months and six months of product use. RESULTS: One-hundred and ten (110) subjects complied with the protocol and completed the six-month study. After six months of product use, the Test Mouthwash group exhibited statistically significant reductions from baseline with respect to Gingival (33.5%), Gingival Interproximal (34.5%), Gingival Severity (63.2%), Plaque (33.6%), Plaque Interproximal (30.0%), and Plaque Severity (73.6%) Index scores. After six months of product use, the Control Mouthwash group exhibited statistically significant increases from baseline with respect to Gingival (6.9%), Plaque Interproximal (7.2%), and Plaque Severity (32.7%) Index scores. Furthermore, after six months of product use, the Control Mouthwash group exhibited reductions from baseline with respect to Plaque (6.1%), Gingival Interproximal (3.6%), and Gingival Severity (1.1%) Index scores which were not statistically significant. After three months of product use, the Test Mouthwash group exhibited statistically significant reductions in Gingival (25.0%), Gingival Interproximal (22.3%), Gingival Severity (38.9%), Plaque (26.1%), Plaque Interproximal (22.4%), and Plaque Severity (75.0%) Index scores as compared to the Control Mouthwash group. After six months of product use, the Test Mouthwash group exhibited statistically significant reductions in Gingival (38.1%), Gingival Interproximal (37.1%), Gingival Severity (63.6%), Plaque (36.5%), Plaque Interproximal (33.2%), and Plaque Severity (78.5%) Index scores as compared to the Control Mouthwash group. CONCLUSION: The results of this double-blind clinical study support that 1) an alcohol-free mouthwash containing a combination of 0.075% CPC and 0.05% NaF produces statistically significant reductions in dental plaque and gingivitis after three and six months compared to baseline, and 2) the alcohol-free CPC mouthwash provides a statistically significantly greater level of efficacy in controlling established dental plaque and gingivitis after three and six months of product use as compared to the Control Mouthwash containing only NaF.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».