Stain control with two modified stannous fluoride/sodium tripolyphosphate toothpastes: A randomised controlled proof of concept study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare build-up of extrinsic tooth stain following use of two novel anhydrous stannous fluoride/sodium tripolyphosphate (SnF2/STP) toothpastes with adjusted (lower) relative dentin abrasivities (RDAs) versus a marketed control and a reference toothpaste. Following prophylaxis, 220 adults with extrinsic dental stain on anterior teeth facial surfaces were randomised to 4 weeks’ twice-daily brushing with either novel 0.454% w/w SnF2 (1100 ppm fluoride)/5% w/w STP toothpastes with differing levels of abrasive silica: ‘Test RDA∼58’; ‘Test RDA∼77’, or a reference: ‘Ref RDA∼80′ (1000 ppm fluoride from sodium monofluorophosphate) or marketed control toothpaste: ‘Ref RDA∼120′ [0.454% w/w SnF2 (1100 ppm fluoride)/5% w/w STP]. Primary endpoint was total Macpherson modification of the Lobene Stain Index (MLSI) area × intensity (A × I) score at Week 4 for Test toothpastes versus Ref RDA∼80. Secondary endpoints were total MLSI (A × I) for all toothpastes versus Ref RDA∼120. After 4 weeks, mean total MLSI scores for Test RDA∼58, Test RDA∼77 and Ref RDA∼80 were all lower than Ref RDA∼120. Ranking order of performance for controlling stain build-up was: Test RDA∼77 > Test RDA∼58 > Ref RDA∼80 > Ref RDA∼120. There was no statistical difference between Test RDA∼58 and Ref RDA∼80; Test RDA∼77 was statistically lower than RDA∼80. All toothpastes were generally well-tolerated. This study showed low levels of stain build-up after 4 weeks’ twice-daily use of novel, low abrasivity, anhydrous SnF2 toothpaste formulations (RDA∼58, RDA∼77), similar to marketed toothpastes (RDA∼80; RDA∼120). Lowering the RDA of appropriately formulated SnF2 toothpastes therefore may not negatively impact stain build-up potential (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03160703). This study indicates lowering RDA of an anhydrous SnF2 toothpaste does not appear to negatively impact its overall dental stain control potential. Development of appropriately formulated SnF2 toothpastes with lower abrasivity may have additional benefits for individuals with dentin hypersensitivity by managing potential dentin wear.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".