A Randomized Clinical Study Investigating the Stain Removal Efficacy of Two Experimental Dentifrices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate extrinsic tooth stain removal and whitening efficacy of two experimental dentifrices containing (i) 5% sodium tripolyphosphate (STP)/1% micronized alumina or (ii) 5% STP/1% micronized alumina with abrasive silica (ED2) compared to a regular fluoride dentifrice (RFD) following 8 weeks of use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, controlled, blind, three-arm, stratified, parallel-group study. Eligible participants underwent clinical assessment of stain on the facial/lingual surfaces of maxillary and mandibular teeth using the modified Lobene stain index (MLSI), and shade of the facial surfaces of the central and lateral maxillary incisors using the VITA Bleachedguide 3D-Master (VITA) shade guide. Participants brushed twice daily with their assigned dentifrice and returned to the clinic for clinical assessments at weeks 4 and 8. RESULTS: A total of 272 participants completed the study (281 screened, 279 randomized). Both experimental dentifrices demonstrated statistically significant reduction from baseline and significant differences compared to RFD for MLSI and VITA shade scores at 4 and 8 weeks. 10 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in seven participants. All were resolved at the end of the study. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that dentifrices containing 5% STP/1% micronized alumina provide enhanced stain removal and shade improvements compared to a regular dentifrice. Study treatments were generally well tolerated. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A low-abrasion daily-use fluoride dentifrice containing 1% micronized alumina and 5% STP, suitable for people at risk of erosive toothwear and/or dentin hypersensitivity, can provide clinically meaningful superior reductions in tooth stain, which translates into a visibly noticeable improvement in tooth shade.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".