Suppr超能文献

随机探索性临床试验评估在牙本质过敏研究中用作对照的牙膏。

A randomised exploratory clinical evaluation of dentifrices used as controls in dentinal hypersensitivity studies.

机构信息

Silverstone Research Group, Las Vegas, NV, USA; UNLV School of Dental Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, USA.

GSK Consumer Healthcare, Weybridge, Surrey, UK.

出版信息

J Dent. 2017 Sep;64:80-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.06.009. Epub 2017 Jun 23.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To explore relative efficacy of six negative-control dentifrices utilised as controls in clinical studies compared with two dentine hypersensitivity (DH)-relief dentifrices used 2×/day for 8 weeks.

METHODS

Six control dentifrices differing in terms of fluoride source (sodium fluoride/sodium monofluorophosphate), abrasive base (silica/dicalcium phosphate), relative dentine abrasivity (RDA) (∼17 to ∼180) and colour (white/blue/multicoloured stripes) were compared with a depolarising dentifrice (5% KNO; RDA ∼70-97; 'Test 1') and an occlusion-technology dentifrice (0.454% SnF; RDA ∼160-180; 'Test 2'). DH was assessed using tactile and evaporative (air) (measured by Schiff Sensitivity Scale and a visual rating scale [VRS]) stimuli.

RESULTS

In total 249 subjects were randomized. All dentifrices yielded statistically significant improvements from baseline on all endpoints. The two DH-relief dentifrices ranked highest in terms of improvement in scores over the control dentifrices. While there was a clear differentiation between Test 1 and control dentifrices on both measures at 4/8 weeks, for Test 2, statistically significant improvements in Schiff scores were observed over all controls at Week 4 but only over three at Week 8. At Week 4 none of the controls separated from Test 2 on tactile threshold; all separated by Week 8. VRS scores did not separate test and control dentifrices. Dentifrices were generally well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The six negative-control dentifrices can be used to assess dentifrices considered to be effective in reducing DH. Although response ranges for commercially available negative controls varied, these results may begin to set acceptable performance ranges for control dentifrices in DH trials.

摘要

目的

探索在临床研究中用作对照的六种阴性对照牙膏与两种每天使用两次、使用 8 周的牙本质敏感缓解牙膏的相对疗效。

方法

六种控制牙膏在氟源(氟化钠/单氟磷酸钠)、磨料基础(二氧化硅/磷酸二钙)、相对牙本质磨损性(RDA)(17 至180)和颜色(白色/蓝色/多色条纹)方面有所不同,与去极化牙膏(5% KNO;RDA70-97;“测试 1”)和封闭技术牙膏(0.454% SnF;RDA160-180;“测试 2”)进行比较。使用触觉和蒸发(空气)(通过 Schiff 敏感性量表和视觉评分量表[VRS]测量)刺激来评估牙本质敏感。

结果

共有 249 名受试者被随机分组。所有牙膏在所有终点上均从基线开始均有统计学显著改善。在改善评分方面,两种牙本质敏感缓解牙膏均优于对照组。虽然在第 4/8 周时,测试 1 和对照组在两种测量方法上都有明显的区别,但在第 4 周时,测试 2 的 Schiff 评分相对于所有对照组都有统计学显著改善,但在第 8 周时只相对于三组有改善。在第 4 周时,对照组在触觉阈值上都没有与测试 2 分开;但在第 8 周时全部分开。VRS 评分未将测试和对照牙膏分开。牙膏通常耐受性良好。

结论

六种阴性对照牙膏可用于评估被认为能有效减少牙本质敏感的牙膏。尽管市售阴性对照的反应范围不同,但这些结果可能开始为牙本质敏感试验中的对照牙膏设定可接受的性能范围。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验