Clinical comparison of the stain-removal efficacy of a novel liquid whitening gel containing 18% carbamide peroxide and a commercially available whitening dentifrice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this examiner-blind clinical study was to compare the extrinsic tooth-stain removal efficacy of a novel, nontray, "paint-on" liquid whitening gel containing 18% carbamide peroxide (Colgate Simply White Clear Whitening Gel) with a commercially available whitening dentifrice. After a baseline examination for extrinsic tooth stain, qualifying adult men and women from Canada were randomized into two treatment groups balanced for age, gender, and level of extrinsic tooth stain. Subjects were instructed to brush their teeth twice daily (morning and evening) for 1 minute with their assigned dentifrice (Group 1: nonwhitening dentifrice; Group 2: whitening dentifrice). The subjects in Group 1 also were instructed to use the paint-on whitening gel for 30 minutes twice daily. Examinations for extrinsic tooth stain were repeated after 2 and 3 weeks. Ninety-seven subjects complied with the protocol and completed the entire study. At both the 2- and 3-week examinations, subjects assigned to the liquid whitening gel-treatment group exhibited statistically significant reductions in extrinsic tooth stain (P < .05) with respect to stain area (22.7% reduction at 3 weeks), stain intensity (26.3% reduction at 3 weeks), and overall stain removal (32% reduction at 3 weeks) compared with the commercially available whitening dentifrice group. Thus, the results of the examiner-blind clinical study support the conclusion that Colgate Simply White Clear Whitening Gel provides a significantly greater level of extrinsic tooth-stain removal efficacy than a commercially available whitening dentifrice.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".