Journal of dentistry · 2012
A double blind randomised controlled clinical trial comparing a novel anti-stain and calculus reducing dentifrice with a standard fluoride dentifrice.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jowett Adrian K, Marlow Ian, Rawlinson Andrew
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This clinical trial tested the anti-stain efficacy at 3 and 6 months of a novel, sodium polyaspartate-containing, anti-stain dentifrice. In addition, the efficacy of the new dentifrice in controlling gingival inflammation and inhibition of calculus deposition was tested.
METHODS: Participants were recruited to this double blind randomised control clinical trial, and allocated to either test or control groups. The presence of stain and calculus were entry criteria. Measurements of stain, calculus and gingival inflammation were recorded using the Shaw and Murray Stain score, Volpe-Manhold Calculus score and the Modified Gingival Index respectively. Measurements were made at baseline, prior to the removal of stain and calculus, and after 3 and 6 months. Missing data were imputed by and the outcomes were analysed using univariate analysis.
RESULTS: At three months, toothpaste containing sodium polyaspartate was better (difference of mean 1.13 with SEM 0.57) than control for the control of dental stain (p<0.05). Stain scores also showed a trend in favour of the test product (difference of mean 1.03 with SEM 0.78) at six months (p>0.05). There was no difference between toothpastes with respect to calculus deposition or gingival inflammation.
CONCLUSIONS: Toothpaste containing sodium polyaspartate was more effective than a control toothpaste at preventing deposition of dental stain for 3 months after professional tooth cleaning but showed no significant effect at 6 months.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Sodium polyaspartate toothpaste was more effective than a control toothpaste at preventing dental stain formation and maybe helpful in controlling staining between episodes of scaling and polishing.
METHODS: Participants were recruited to this double blind randomised control clinical trial, and allocated to either test or control groups. The presence of stain and calculus were entry criteria. Measurements of stain, calculus and gingival inflammation were recorded using the Shaw and Murray Stain score, Volpe-Manhold Calculus score and the Modified Gingival Index respectively. Measurements were made at baseline, prior to the removal of stain and calculus, and after 3 and 6 months. Missing data were imputed by and the outcomes were analysed using univariate analysis.
RESULTS: At three months, toothpaste containing sodium polyaspartate was better (difference of mean 1.13 with SEM 0.57) than control for the control of dental stain (p<0.05). Stain scores also showed a trend in favour of the test product (difference of mean 1.03 with SEM 0.78) at six months (p>0.05). There was no difference between toothpastes with respect to calculus deposition or gingival inflammation.
CONCLUSIONS: Toothpaste containing sodium polyaspartate was more effective than a control toothpaste at preventing deposition of dental stain for 3 months after professional tooth cleaning but showed no significant effect at 6 months.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Sodium polyaspartate toothpaste was more effective than a control toothpaste at preventing dental stain formation and maybe helpful in controlling staining between episodes of scaling and polishing.