Efficacy of an occluding toothpaste on dentinal hypersensitivity over 14 days
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a 0.454% stannous fluoride/5% sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) toothpaste's ability to provide relief from dentinal hypersensitivity (DH) applied using 'focused brushing.' MATERIALS AND METHODS: /STP toothpaste was applied by brushing two selected sensitive teeth before 1 min whole-mouth brushing, compared to 1 min whole-mouth brushing only, with a negative control toothpaste. DH was assessed via evaporative (air) (Schiff scale) and tactile (Yeaple probe) stimuli after 7 and 14 d of twice-daily brushing. RESULTS: In total, 141 (Study 1)/142 (Study 2) participants were randomised. In Study 1, the test treatment significantly reduced DH at 7/14 d versus baseline (7/14 d Schiff difference: -0.74 [-0.84,-0.65]/-1.39 [-1.54,-1.23]; tactile: 6.00 [4.88,7.13]/15.30 [13.34,17.26]); whereas the Control treatment did not (7/14 d Schiff difference -0.03 [-0.13,0.06]/-0.10 [-0.25,0.06]; tactile: 0.77 [-0.36,1.90]/0.77 [-1.20,2.74]). Differences between Test and Control were statistically significant (p < 0.0001 all cases). In Study 2, both treatments reduced DH compared to baseline by both measures, but there were no significant between-treatment differences. Toothpastes were generally well-tolerated. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: /5% STP toothpaste efficacy; Study 2 results may have been influenced by placebo/Hawthorne effects. DH study design needs to, where possible, negate such effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".