Comparative efficacy of novel bioactive glass versus sodium fluoride toothpaste for dentin hypersensitivity: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This first-in-human clinical study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a bioglass incorporated in a toothpaste, in reducing dentin hypersensitivity (DH) compared to a sodium fluoride (NaF) toothpaste over a 2-week period. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, parallel-arm, proof-of-concept clinical trial was conducted with 46 participants experiencing self-reported and clinically confirmed DH. Participants were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: (1) Test toothpaste (5 wt% bioglass with 1425 ppm fluoride as NaF), or (2) NaF toothpaste (1425 ppm fluoride). Outcomes included Schiff Airblast Sensitivity Score (primary endpoint), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, and Yeaple Probe tactile sensitivity (secondary endpoints). Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and descriptive statistics, were performed to evaluate intergroup differences. RESULTS: The Test group exhibited a statistically significant reduction in Schiff Airblast Sensitivity Scores at Day 14 compared to the NaF group (ΔMean: -0.8 vs. -0.5, p = 0.0341). Significant improvements were also observed in VAS pain scores in as little as 2 days (ΔMean: -1.03 vs. 0.04, p = 0.0057). Rapid pain relief was noted within 2 days, indicating both immediate and cumulative effects. The difference in tactile scores was not statistically significant between groups although greater change was seen with Test toothpaste (ΔMean 13 vs. 3 g; p = 0.068). No severe adverse events were reported, and safety profiles were comparable across groups. CONCLUSION: The toothpaste containing the bioglass demonstrated superior efficacy in alleviating DH symptoms at both early and later time points through its mechanism of rapid tubule occlusion. This innovative approach aligns with World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for fluoride use and addresses unmet needs in DH management globally. Further research is warranted to explore its long-term applications in preventive and restorative dentistry. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: U.S. National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry (http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov) ID NCT06166745.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".