MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005252123 · doi:10.1177/0022034520903036

Desensitizing Toothpastes for Dentin Hypersensitivity: A Network Meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3005252123 on OpenAlexaff
Carolina Castro Martins, Ramon Targino Firmino, John J. Riva, L. Ge, Alonso Carrasco‐Labra, Romina Brignardello‐Petersen, Luis Enrique Colunga‐Lozano, Ana Flávia Granville‐Garcia, F.O. Costa, Juan José Yepes-Núñez, Yuan Zhang, Holger J. Schünemann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Erosion and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorNCMIC Foundation
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineSodium fluorideStrictly standardized mean differencePotassiumToothpasteDentin hypersensitivityDentistryRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineDentinFluorideChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to compare the relative effects of toothpaste formulations for dentin hypersensitivity (DH), tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched 7 databases to February 2019. Paired reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessment. The outcome of interest was painful response measured through tactile, cold, and air stimuli. We conducted a random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis using standardized mean difference (SMD) and their credible intervals (CIs) as the measure of effect for each pain stimuli. We assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 125 RCTs (12,541 patients). For tactile stimulus, the following active ingredients showed large beneficial effects compared to fluoride with moderate certainty of evidence (SMD; 95% CI): potassium + stannous fluoride (SnF 2 ) (3.05; 1.69–4.41), calcium sodium phosphosilicate (CSP) (2.14; 0.75–3.53), SnF 2 (2.02; 1.06–2.99), potassium + hydroxyapatite (2.47; 0.3–4.64), strontium (1.43; 0.46–2.41), and potassium (1.23; 0.48–1.98). For cold stimulus, CSP showed large beneficial effects compared to fluoride (3.93; 0.34–7.53) with moderate certainty; for air stimulus, arginine (2.22; 1.45–2.99), potassium + hydroxyapatite (2.44; 0.33–4.55), potassium + SnF 2 (2.28; 0.87–3.69), CSP (1.98; 0.99–2.98), and SnF 2 (1.9; 1.03–2.77) showed large beneficial effects compared to fluoride with moderate to high certainty. Most toothpaste formulations showed evidence of superiority against placebo or fluorides (amine fluoride, sodium monofluorophosphate, or sodium fluoride). CSP was most beneficial for all 3 stimuli with high to moderate certainty. SnF 2 alone and potassium combined with SnF 2 or hydroxyapatite were beneficial for tactile and air stimulus with high to moderate certainty. Arginine was beneficial for air stimulus, and strontium and potassium were beneficial for tactile stimulus, with moderate certainty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.012
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.590
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.058 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental ResearchSame topicDental Erosion and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207