In vitro evaluation of Sensi-IP®: A soluble and mineralizing sensitivity solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sensi-IP®OG (SIP-OG) and Sensi-IP®FF (SIP-FF) are soluble bioactive glasses developed to treat dentin hypersensitivity and promote remineralization. Evaluation of their therapeutic potential to reduce dentin hypersensitivity and recover enamel strength was evaluated using standardized in vitro assessments based on simulated use. METHODS: To assess dentin occlusion a visual occlusion methodology was employed. Dentin discs were subjected to twice-daily simulated brushing (for 5 days) using 0.67 g of toothpaste for 10 s. Simple prototype toothpastes containing SIP-OG and SIP-FF were compared to commercially available controls: Colgate® Sensitive Pro-Relief (CPR) and Sensodyne® Repair and Protect with NovaMin® (SRP). Samples were stored in artificial saliva between treatments. All samples were assessed at baseline and subsequent to each treatment and were scored on a 5-point categorical scale for occlusion. For enamel surface effects, test articles of SIP-OG, SIP-FF, and SIP-FF with NaF were compared to a positive (with NaF) and a negative (no NaF) control paste. Enamel samples were subjected to a pH cycling regime, providing exposure to the toothpaste slurry (i.e., 2 parts deionized water to 1 part toothpaste), mineralizing solution, and demineralizing solution over 5 days of simulated use. Samples were stored overnight in mineralizing solution. Samples were evaluated for fluoride uptake and changes to surface microhardness. RESULTS: for SIP-FF with NaF. Surface microhardness after acid cycling allowed recovery of 59 % of surface microhardness after treatment with SIP-OG or SIP-FF with NaF. SIP-OG achieved significant surface microhardness recovery versus SIP-FF alone, a NaF control paste, and a fluoride free control paste at the significance level of p ≤ 0.05. SIP-FF with NaF achieved surface microhardness recovery versus SIP-FF alone, a NaF control paste, and a fluoride free control paste at the significance level of p ≤ 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Superior occlusion of dentin tubules was observed with both novel additives compared to commercially available toothpastes. A build-up effect with increasing occlusion was noted with repeated application for both novel additives and ascribed to mineralization effects, as supported by surface microhardness recovery on initial enamel lesions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".