Caries-preventing effect of a hydroxyapatite-toothpaste in adults: a 18-month double-blinded randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dental caries is a worldwide challenge for public health. The aim of this 18-month double-blinded, randomized, clinical trial was to compare the caries-preventing effect of a fluoride-free, hydroxyapatite toothpaste (test) and a toothpaste with sodium fluoride (1450 ppm fluoride; positive control) in adults. Methods: The primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects showing no increase in overall Decayed Missing Filled Surfaces (DMFS) index. The study was designed as non-inferiority trial. Non-inferiority was claimed if the upper limit of the exact one-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of the primary endpoint DMFS between test and control toothpaste was less than the predefined margin of non-inferiority (Δ ≤ 20%). Results: In total, 189 adults were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; 171 subjects finished the study per protocol (PP). According to the PP analysis, no increase in DMFS index was observed in 89.3% of subjects of the hydroxyapatite group and 87.4% of the subjects of the fluoride group. The hydroxyapatite toothpaste was not statistically inferior to a fluoride toothpaste with regard to the primary endpoint. Conclusion: Hydroxyapatite was proven to be a safe and efficient anticaries agent in oral care. Clinical trial registration: NCT04756557.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".