Evaluation of a Test Mouthwash and Dentifrice Regimen in an In-situ Model of Dental Erosion
1 other identifier
interventional
36
1 country
1
Brief Summary
An in situ model will be used to evaluate and compare enamel remineralization of bovine enamel specimens.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P25-P50 for phase_2
Started Aug 2009
Shorter than P25 for phase_2
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
August 1, 2009
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
October 1, 2009
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
October 1, 2009
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
April 30, 2010
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
May 24, 2010
CompletedResults Posted
Study results publicly available
April 25, 2013
CompletedJanuary 1, 2015
December 1, 2014
2 months
April 30, 2010
September 13, 2012
December 11, 2014
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
Adjusted Mean Percent Net Erosion Resistance (NER) of Enamel Specimens Exposed to Test Dentifrice + Test MR Relative to: 1) Test Dentifrice+ Sterile Water Rinse 2) Reference Dentifrice+ Sterile Water Rinse 3) Placebo Dentifrice+ Sterile Water Rinse
Enamel specimens were exposed to dietary erosive challenge and set of five indentations within each specimen was measured. Decrease in the indentation length compared to the baseline indicates hardening of enamel surface. Enamel specimens were exposed to second erosion challenge to determine NER which compared the indentations values of enamel specimens at baseline (B), first erosive (E1) and second erosive challenge (E2). Percent NER was calculated by formula: \[(E1-E2)/ (E1-B)\]\*100. Smaller the negative NER, better is treatment regimen in imparting resistance to enamel.
Baseline, 4 hours post treatment in each treatment period
Secondary Outcomes (1)
Adjusted Mean Percentage Surface Microhardness (SMH) Recovery of Enamel Specimens Exposed to Test Dentifrice + Test MR Relative to: 1)Test Dentifrice+Sterile Water Rinse 2)Reference Dentifrice+Sterile Water Rinse 3)Placebo Dentifrice+ Sterile Water Rinse
Baseline, 4 hours post treatment in each treatment period.
Other Outcomes (4)
Adjusted Mean Percent NER of Enamel Specimens Exposed to a Treatment Regimen of Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR Relative to: 1) Test Dentifrice +Test MR 2) Test Dentifrice + Sterile Water Rinse 3) Reference Dentifrice +Sterile Water Rinse
Baseline, 4 hours post treatment in each treatment period
Adjusted Mean Percentage SMH Recovery of Enamel Specimens Exposed to Test Dentifrice + Test MR Relative to Following Treatment Regimens: 1) Test Dentifrice +Test MR 2) Test Dentifrice + Sterile Water 3) Reference Dentifrice +Sterile Water
Baseline, 4 hours post treatment in each treatment period
Adjusted Mean Percent NER of Enamel Specimens Exposed to Test Dentifrice +Sterile Water Rinse and Reference Dentifrice +Sterile Water Rinse
Baseline, 4 hours post treatment in each treatment period
- +1 more other outcomes
Study Arms (5)
Test Dentifrice + Test Mouth Rinse (MR)
EXPERIMENTALTest fluoride dentifrice and test fluoride MR
Test Dentifrice + Sterile Water Rinse
EXPERIMENTALTest fluoride dentifrice and sterile water rinse
Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR
EXPERIMENTALPlacebo dentifrice and test fluoride rinse
Reference Dentifrice + Sterile Water Rinse
ACTIVE COMPARATORMarketed fluoride dentifrice with sterile water rinse
Placebo Dentifrice + Sterile Water Rinse
PLACEBO COMPARATORPlacebo dentifrice and sterile water rinse
Interventions
Test fluoride toothpaste and test fluoride mouth rinse
United Kingdom marketed fluoride toothpaste
Sterile water rinse
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- An intact maxillary dental arch suitable for the retention of the palatal appliance and an intact mandibular dental arch - subjects may have fixed bridges replacing missing teeth
- No current active caries or periodontal disease that may compromise the study or the health of the subjects
- A gum base stimulated whole saliva flow rate greater than or equal to 0.8 mL/minute and an unstimulated whole saliva flow rate greater than or equal to 0.2 mL/minute
You may not qualify if:
- Known or suspected intolerance or hypersensitivity to the study materials (or closely related compounds) or any of their stated ingredients
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
- GlaxoSmithKlinelead
Study Sites (1)
Indiana University School of Dentistry
Indianapolis, Indiana, 46202, United States
Related Publications (1)
Maggio B, Guibert RG, Mason SC, Karwal R, Rees GD, Kelly S, Zero DT. Evaluation of mouthrinse and dentifrice regimens in an in situ erosion remineralisation model. J Dent. 2010 Nov;38 Suppl 3:S37-44. doi: 10.1016/S0300-5712(11)70007-0.
PMID: 21256403BACKGROUND
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Results Point of Contact
- Title
- GSK Response Center
- Organization
- GlaxoSmithKline
Study Officials
- STUDY DIRECTOR
GSK Clinical Trials
GlaxoSmithKline
Publication Agreements
- PI is Sponsor Employee
- No
- Restriction Type
- OTHER
- Restrictive Agreement
- Yes
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- phase 2
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- SINGLE
- Who Masked
- INVESTIGATOR
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Intervention Model
- CROSSOVER
- Sponsor Type
- INDUSTRY
- Responsible Party
- SPONSOR
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
April 30, 2010
First Posted
May 24, 2010
Study Start
August 1, 2009
Primary Completion
October 1, 2009
Study Completion
October 1, 2009
Last Updated
January 1, 2015
Results First Posted
April 25, 2013
Record last verified: 2014-12