Erosion Remineralization Efficacy of Gel-to-Foam Fluoride Toothpastes in situ: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, four-treatment, four-period crossover study compared the enamel remineralization effects of low- and medium-abrasivity gel-to-foam toothpastes and a reference toothpaste (all 1,450 ppm fluoride as NaF) versus placebo toothpaste (0 ppm fluoride) using a short-term in situ erosion model. Subjects (n = 56) wearing a palatal appliance holding acid-softened bovine enamel specimens brushed their teeth with the test toothpastes. Thereafter, the specimens were removed for analysis of percent surface microhardness recovery (%SMHR) and percent relative erosion resistance (%RER) at 2, 4, and 8 h. Both low- and medium-abrasivity gel-to-foam fluoride toothpastes and the reference toothpaste provided significantly greater %SMHR than placebo at all assessment time points (all p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference of %SMHR was observed between the fluoride treatment groups at any time point. Similarly, all fluoride products provided significantly superior %RER versus placebo (all p < 0.0001), whereas no significant difference of this parameter was noted between the fluoride treatment groups. Increasing numerical improvements of %SMHR and %RER were observed in all four treatment groups over time (2, 4, and 8 h). The present in situ model is a sensitive tool to investigate intrinsic and fluoride-enhanced rehardening of eroded enamel. All three fluoride toothpastes were more efficacious than placebo, and there were no safety concerns following single dosing in this short-term in situ model.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".