Comparative Antiplaque Effect of Two Antimicrobial Dentifrices: Laboratory and Clinical Evaluations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of a stannous fluoride dentifrice versus a triclosan-containing dentifrice on the reduction of plaque using in vitro and clinical models. METHODS: Both investigations evaluated a novel 0.454% stabilized stannous fluoride dentifrice (Crest® Pro-Health™ smooth formula) versus a sodium fluoride/triclosan positive control dentifrice (Colgate® Total®). The in vitro evaluation utilized the Plaque Glycolysis and Regrowth Model (PGRM), wherein the metabolic effects (acid production/glycolysis inhibition) of the dentifrices were assessed on plaque biofilms grown on glass rods after three days growth and a single dentifrice treatment. Treatments were evaluated via analysis of variance, Student's t-test. The clinical trial was a four-week, single-center, randomized and controlled, double-blind, parallel group study, where 120 adults were randomized to one of the two dentifrices for use at home according to manufacturer's instructions. Plaque was evaluated at baseline and Week 4 with the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Statistical analyses were via analysis of covariance. RESULTS: In vitro PGRM: The stannous fluoride dentifrice provided 43.3% glycolysis inhibition compared to 27.5% for the triclosan control, and the pH decrease associated with acid production was significantly less for stannous fluoride (0.87) versus triclosan (1.11); p < 0.05. Clinical trial: One hundred eighteen (118) subjects completed the study with fully evaluable data. Both dentifrice groups demonstrated statistically significant (p < 0.0001) reductions in plaque at Week 4 compared with baseline, with the stannous fluoride dentifrice producing a significantly lower adjusted mean Week 4 plaque score (p < 0.0001) versus the triclosan positive control for whole mouth plaque (23.1% lower) and interproximal plaque (43.5% lower). Both dentifrices were well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The stabilized stannous fluoride dentifrice provided statistically significant reductions in plaque glycolysis in vitro and plaque growth in vivo compared to the triclosan dentifrice. Results for both studies were consistent.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".