Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of test fluoride dentifrice in reducing Dentin Hypersensitivity (DH) with that of a standard fluoride dentifrice, as measured by evaporative air sensitivity after 12 weeks twice daily brushing.
A randomized, examiner blind, three treatment arm, parallel group design with a treatment period of 12 weeks. Approximately 275 participants will be screened to ensure that approximately 120 participants to be randomized (approximately 40 to each treatment group) and at least 114 participants to complete the study (approximately 38 per treatment group).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test Dentifrice | Experimental | Participants will be instructed to apply a full ribbon of test dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. |
|
| Comparator Dentifrice | Active Comparator | Participants will be instructed to apply a full ribbon of the comparator dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. |
|
| Negative Control Dentifrice | Active Comparator | Participants will be instructed to apply a full ribbon of the negative control dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test Dentifrice | Drug | Dentifrice containing 1450 parts per million (ppm) fluoride as sodium monofluorophosphate. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Week 12 (Test Dentifrice Versus [vs] Negative Control Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was evaluated using the Schiff Sensitivity Score on test teeth for each participant. After the examiner applied a standardized air stimulus, the participant's response was rated on a 0 to 3 scale, where 0 equal to (=) no response to the stimulus, 1= response to air stimulus without request for discontinuation of the stimulus, 2= response to air stimulus with request for discontinuation of the stimulus, and 3= a painful response with a request for discontinuation of the stimulus. Lower score indicated improvement. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the Baseline score from the score at indicated timepoint. | Baseline and Week 12 |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Weeks 2, 4 and 8 (Test Dentifrice vs Negative Control Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was evaluated using the Schiff Sensitivity Score on test teeth for each participant. After the examiner applied a standardized air stimulus, the participant's response was rated on a 0 to 3 scale, where 0= no response to the stimulus, 1= response to air stimulus without request for discontinuation of the stimulus, 2= response to air stimulus with request for discontinuation of the stimulus, and 3= a painful response with a request for discontinuation of the stimulus. Lower score indicated improvement. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the Baseline score from the score at indicated timepoints. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Participant demonstrates understanding of the study and is willing to participate as evidenced by voluntary written informed consent and has received a signed and dated copy of the informed consent form.
Participant is 18 to 60 years of age.
Participant understands and is willing, able and likely to comply all study procedures and restrictions.
Participant with good general and mental health, in the opinion of the investigator or medically qualified designee:
Self-reported history of DH lasting more than 6 months but not more than 10 years and minimum of 20 natural teeth.
Exclusion Criteria:
Female participant who is known to be pregnant or who is intending to become pregnant over the duration of the study.
Female participant who is breast-feeding.
Participant with known or suspected intolerance or hypersensitivity to the study materials (or closely related compounds) or any of their stated ingredients.
Participation is in another clinical study or receipt of an investigational drug within 30 days prior to the screening visit.
Participant who has had tooth desensitizing treatment within 8 weeks of Screening visit (professional sensitivity treatments and non-dentifrice sensitivity treatments).
Participant who had previously participated in this study.
Participant with a recent history (within the last year) of alcohol or other substance abuse.
Participant who is an employee of the sponsor or the study site or members of their immediate family.
Participant with presence of chronic debilitating disease which, in the opinion of the investigator, could affect study outcomes.
Participant with any condition or daily doses of a medication which, in the opinion of the investigator, is causing xerostomia.
Participant with dental prophylaxis within 4 weeks of screening.
Participant with tongue or lip piercing or presence of dental implants.
Participant with gross periodontal disease, treatment of periodontal disease (including surgery) within 12 months of screening, scaling or root planning within 3 months of screening.
Participant who did teeth bleaching within 8 weeks of screening.
Participant with Specific Dentition Exclusions for Test teeth.
Participant who has used product of a sensitivity dentifrice within 8 weeks of screening.
Participant who had daily doses of a medication or traditional herbal ingredients or treatments which, in the opinion of the investigator, could interfere with the perception of pain. Examples of such medications include analgesics, anticonvulsants, antihistamines that cause marked or moderate sedation, sedatives, tranquilizers, mood-altering and anti-inflammatory drugs. Examples of herbal ingredients/treatments include clove oil, olive oil, or other treatments that are directly applied to the oral cavity for the treatment of oral health problems.
Participant who is currently taking a course of antibiotics or has taken a course of antibiotics within 2 weeks of baseline.
Participant who had dental procedures or participant who require antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures.
Any participant who, in the opinion of the investigator, should not participate in the study.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Minquan Du, DSS, PhD | Wuhan University | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University | Wuhan | Hubei | 430079 | China |
Anonymized individual participant data and study documents can be requested for further research from ww.clinical-trial-register@haleon.com.
IPD will be made available within 6 months of publishing the results of the primary endpoints, key secondary endpoints and safety data of the study.
Access is provided after a research proposal is submitted and has received approval from the Independent Review Panel and after a Data Sharing Agreement is in place. Access is provided for an initial period of 12 months, but an extension can be granted, when justified, for up to another 12 months.
Not provided
A total of 120 participants were enrolled and randomized into three treatment groups: 42 participants to the Test Dentifrice group, 40 participants to the Comparator group and 38 participants to the Negative Control group. All 120 participants completed the study.
This study was conducted at a single center in China.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Test Dentifrice | Participants were instructed to apply a full ribbon of test dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. |
| FG001 | Comparator Dentifrice | Participants were instructed to apply a full ribbon of the comparator dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. |
| FG002 | Negative Control Dentifrice | Participants were instructed to apply a full ribbon of the negative control dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Safety Population was defined as all participants who were randomised and administered at least one study treatment during the study.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Test Dentifrice | Participants were instructed to apply a full ribbon of test dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. |
| BG001 | Comparator Dentifrice |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Week 12 (Test Dentifrice Versus [vs] Negative Control Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was evaluated using the Schiff Sensitivity Score on test teeth for each participant. After the examiner applied a standardized air stimulus, the participant's response was rated on a 0 to 3 scale, where 0 equal to (=) no response to the stimulus, 1= response to air stimulus without request for discontinuation of the stimulus, 2= response to air stimulus with request for discontinuation of the stimulus, and 3= a painful response with a request for discontinuation of the stimulus. Lower score indicated improvement. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the Baseline score from the score at indicated timepoint. | The intent-to-treat (ITT) population included all participants who were randomised, administered the study treatment at least once during the study and provided at least one post-baseline assessment of efficacy. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | score on a scale | Baseline and Week 12 |
|
Immediately from the start of the investigational product (or washout product), and until 5 days following last administration of the investigational product (Approximately up to 117 days).
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Test Dentifrice | Participants were instructed to apply a full ribbon of test dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. |
Not provided
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mouth Ulceration | Gastrointestinal disorders | Systematic Assessment |
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haleon Response Center | HALEON | +441932959500 | ww.clinical-trial-register@haleon.com |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D003807 | Dentin Sensitivity |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D014076 | Tooth Diseases |
| D009057 | Stomatognathic Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Colgate Sensitive ProRelief | Drug | A marketed dentifrice. |
|
| Colgate Triple Protection | Drug | A marketed dentifrice. |
|
| Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, and 8 |
| Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Test Dentifrice vs Negative Control Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was assessed on the test teeth by applying a 1-second air stimulus from a standard dental syringe. Participants rated the intensity of their response to the evaporative (air) stimulus using a 100 millimeter (mm) VAS with scores ranging from 0 mm (No discomfort) to 100 mm (Extreme discomfort; worst imaginable). Higher score indicated worse outcome (higher sensitivity). Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting Baseline value from the value at indicated timepoints. | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
| Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Tactile Threshold at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Test Dentifrice vs Negative Control Dentifrice) | Tactile sensitivity was assessed for eligible teeth using a constant pressure probe (Yeaple probe). After each application of the stimulus, participants were asked to indicate whether they experienced any pain or discomfort (yes/no response). The pressure setting with two consecutive 'yes' responses was recorded as the tactile threshold (grams [g]). Higher tactile threshold indicated a better outcome (less sensitivity). Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting Baseline value from the value at indicated timepoints. | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
| Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Comparator Dentifrice vs Negative Control Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was evaluated using the Schiff Sensitivity Score on test teeth for each participant. After the examiner applied a standardized air stimulus, the participant's response was rated on a 0 to 3 scale, where 0= no response to the stimulus, 1= response to air stimulus without request for discontinuation of the stimulus, 2= response to air stimulus with request for discontinuation of the stimulus, and 3= a painful response with a request for discontinuation of the stimulus. Lower score indicated improvement. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the Baseline score from the score at indicated timepoints. | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
| Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in VAS at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Comparator Dentifrice vs Negative Control Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was assessed on the test teeth by applying a 1-second air stimulus from a standard dental syringe. Participants rated the intensity of their response to the evaporative (air) stimulus using a 100 mm VAS with scores ranging from 0 mm (No discomfort) to 100 mm (Extreme discomfort; worst imaginable). Higher score indicated worse outcome (higher sensitivity). Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting Baseline value from the value at indicated timepoints. | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
| Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Tactile Threshold at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Comparator Dentifrice vs Negative Control Dentifrice) | Tactile sensitivity was assessed for eligible teeth using a constant pressure probe (Yeaple probe). After each application of the stimulus, participants were asked to indicate whether they experienced any pain or discomfort (yes/no response). The pressure setting with two consecutive 'yes' responses was recorded as the tactile threshold (g). Higher tactile threshold indicated better outcome (less sensitivity). Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting Baseline value from the value at indicated timepoints. | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
| Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Test Dentifrice vs Comparator Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was evaluated using the Schiff Sensitivity Score on test teeth for each participant. After the examiner applied a standardized air stimulus, the participant's response was rated on a 0 to 3 scale, where 0= no response to the stimulus, 1= response to air stimulus without request for discontinuation of the stimulus, 2= response to air stimulus with request for discontinuation of the stimulus, and 3= a painful response with a request for discontinuation of the stimulus. Lower score indicated improvement. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the Baseline score from the score at indicated timepoints. | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
| Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in VAS at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Test Dentifrice vs Comparator Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was assessed on the test teeth by applying a 1-second air stimulus from a standard dental syringe. Participants rated the intensity of their response to the evaporative (air) stimulus using a 100 mm VAS with scores ranging from 0 mm (No discomfort) to 100 mm (Extreme discomfort; worst imaginable). Higher score indicated worse outcome (higher sensitivity). Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting Baseline value from the value at indicated timepoints. | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
| Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Tactile Threshold at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Test Dentifrice vs Comparator Dentifrice) | Tactile sensitivity was assessed for eligible teeth using a constant pressure probe (Yeaple probe). After each application of the stimulus, participants were asked to indicate whether they experienced any pain or discomfort (yes/no response). The pressure setting with two consecutive 'yes' responses was recorded as the tactile threshold (g). Higher tactile threshold indicated better outcome (less sensitivity). Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting Baseline value from the value at indicated timepoints. | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
Participants were instructed to apply a full ribbon of the comparator dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. |
| BG002 | Negative Control Dentifrice | Participants were instructed to apply a full ribbon of the negative control dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. |
| BG003 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| OG000 | Test Dentifrice | Participants were instructed to apply a full ribbon of test dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. |
| OG001 | Negative Control Dentifrice | Participants were instructed to apply a full ribbon of the negative control dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Weeks 2, 4 and 8 (Test Dentifrice vs Negative Control Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was evaluated using the Schiff Sensitivity Score on test teeth for each participant. After the examiner applied a standardized air stimulus, the participant's response was rated on a 0 to 3 scale, where 0= no response to the stimulus, 1= response to air stimulus without request for discontinuation of the stimulus, 2= response to air stimulus with request for discontinuation of the stimulus, and 3= a painful response with a request for discontinuation of the stimulus. Lower score indicated improvement. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the Baseline score from the score at indicated timepoints. | ITT population. Only those participants with data available at the indicated timepoint were analyzed. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | score on a scale | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, and 8 |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Test Dentifrice vs Negative Control Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was assessed on the test teeth by applying a 1-second air stimulus from a standard dental syringe. Participants rated the intensity of their response to the evaporative (air) stimulus using a 100 millimeter (mm) VAS with scores ranging from 0 mm (No discomfort) to 100 mm (Extreme discomfort; worst imaginable). Higher score indicated worse outcome (higher sensitivity). Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting Baseline value from the value at indicated timepoints. | ITT population. Only those participants with data available at the indicated timepoint were analyzed. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | score on a scale | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Tactile Threshold at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Test Dentifrice vs Negative Control Dentifrice) | Tactile sensitivity was assessed for eligible teeth using a constant pressure probe (Yeaple probe). After each application of the stimulus, participants were asked to indicate whether they experienced any pain or discomfort (yes/no response). The pressure setting with two consecutive 'yes' responses was recorded as the tactile threshold (grams [g]). Higher tactile threshold indicated a better outcome (less sensitivity). Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting Baseline value from the value at indicated timepoints. | ITT population. Only those participants with data available at the indicated timepoint were analyzed. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | g | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Comparator Dentifrice vs Negative Control Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was evaluated using the Schiff Sensitivity Score on test teeth for each participant. After the examiner applied a standardized air stimulus, the participant's response was rated on a 0 to 3 scale, where 0= no response to the stimulus, 1= response to air stimulus without request for discontinuation of the stimulus, 2= response to air stimulus with request for discontinuation of the stimulus, and 3= a painful response with a request for discontinuation of the stimulus. Lower score indicated improvement. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the Baseline score from the score at indicated timepoints. | ITT population. Only those participants with data available at the indicated timepoint were analyzed. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | score on a scale | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in VAS at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Comparator Dentifrice vs Negative Control Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was assessed on the test teeth by applying a 1-second air stimulus from a standard dental syringe. Participants rated the intensity of their response to the evaporative (air) stimulus using a 100 mm VAS with scores ranging from 0 mm (No discomfort) to 100 mm (Extreme discomfort; worst imaginable). Higher score indicated worse outcome (higher sensitivity). Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting Baseline value from the value at indicated timepoints. | ITT population. Only those participants with data available at the indicated timepoint were analyzed. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | score on a scale | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Tactile Threshold at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Comparator Dentifrice vs Negative Control Dentifrice) | Tactile sensitivity was assessed for eligible teeth using a constant pressure probe (Yeaple probe). After each application of the stimulus, participants were asked to indicate whether they experienced any pain or discomfort (yes/no response). The pressure setting with two consecutive 'yes' responses was recorded as the tactile threshold (g). Higher tactile threshold indicated better outcome (less sensitivity). Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting Baseline value from the value at indicated timepoints. | ITT population. Only those participants with data available at the indicated timepoint were analyzed. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | g | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Test Dentifrice vs Comparator Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was evaluated using the Schiff Sensitivity Score on test teeth for each participant. After the examiner applied a standardized air stimulus, the participant's response was rated on a 0 to 3 scale, where 0= no response to the stimulus, 1= response to air stimulus without request for discontinuation of the stimulus, 2= response to air stimulus with request for discontinuation of the stimulus, and 3= a painful response with a request for discontinuation of the stimulus. Lower score indicated improvement. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the Baseline score from the score at indicated timepoints. | ITT population. Only those participants with data available at the indicated timepoint were analyzed. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | score on a scale | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in VAS at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Test Dentifrice vs Comparator Dentifrice) | Evaporative (air) sensitivity was assessed on the test teeth by applying a 1-second air stimulus from a standard dental syringe. Participants rated the intensity of their response to the evaporative (air) stimulus using a 100 mm VAS with scores ranging from 0 mm (No discomfort) to 100 mm (Extreme discomfort; worst imaginable). Higher score indicated worse outcome (higher sensitivity). Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting Baseline value from the value at indicated timepoints. | ITT population. Only those participants with data available at the indicated timepoint were analyzed. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | score on a scale | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline in Tactile Threshold at Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (Test Dentifrice vs Comparator Dentifrice) | Tactile sensitivity was assessed for eligible teeth using a constant pressure probe (Yeaple probe). After each application of the stimulus, participants were asked to indicate whether they experienced any pain or discomfort (yes/no response). The pressure setting with two consecutive 'yes' responses was recorded as the tactile threshold (g). Higher tactile threshold indicated better outcome (less sensitivity). Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting Baseline value from the value at indicated timepoints. | ITT population. Only those participants with data available at the indicated timepoint were analyzed. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | g | Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 |
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 42 |
| 0 |
| 42 |
| 2 |
| 42 |
| EG001 | Comparator Dentifrice | Participants were instructed to apply a full ribbon of the comparator dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. | 0 | 40 | 0 | 40 | 2 | 40 |
| EG002 | Negative Control Dentifrice | Participants were instructed to apply a full ribbon of the negative control dentifrice to cover the head of the assigned toothbrush and brush twice daily for 1 timed minute throughout the 12-week treatment period. | 0 | 38 | 0 | 38 | 0 | 38 |
| Pharyngitis | Infections and infestations | Systematic Assessment |
|
| Hypertension | Vascular disorders | Systematic Assessment |
|
| Nasopharyngitis | Infections and infestations | Systematic Assessment |
|
HALEON agreements may vary with individual investigators but will not prohibit any investigator from publishing. HALEON supports the publication of results from all centers of a multi-center trial but requests that reports based on single-site data not precede the primary publication of the entire clinical trial.
| Week 4 |
|
|
| Week 8 |
|
|
| <0.0001 |
| Adjusted Mean Difference |
| -0.47 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -0.69 |
| -0.26 |
| Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 8 | ANCOVA | 0.0006 | Adjusted Mean Difference | -0.45 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.70 | -0.20 | Superiority |
| Week 4 |
|
|
| Week 8 |
|
|
| Week 12 |
|
|
| 0.9207 |
| Adjusted Mean Difference |
| -0.40 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -8.31 |
| 7.52 |
| Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 8 | ANCOVA | 0.2882 | Adjusted Mean Difference | -5.00 | 2-Sided | 95 | -14.28 | 4.28 | Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 12 | ANCOVA | 0.0600 | Adjusted Mean Difference | -9.74 | 2-Sided | 95 | -19.90 | 0.42 | Superiority |
| Week 4 |
|
|
| Week 8 |
|
|
| Week 12 |
|
|
| 0.0093 |
| Adjusted Mean Difference |
| 8.91 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| 2.24 |
| 15.57 |
| Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 8 | ANCOVA | <0.0001 | Adjusted Mean Difference | 14.21 | 2-Sided | 95 | 7.40 | 21.02 | Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 12 | ANCOVA | <0.0001 | Adjusted Mean Difference | 23.88 | 2-Sided | 95 | 14.50 | 33.26 | Superiority |
| Week 4 |
|
|
| Week 8 |
|
|
| Week 12 |
|
|
| <0.0001 |
| Adjusted Mean Difference |
| -0.61 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -0.82 |
| -0.39 |
| Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 8 | ANCOVA | <0.0001 | Adjusted Mean Difference | -0.63 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.89 | -0.38 | Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 12 | ANCOVA | <0.0001 | Adjusted Mean Difference | -1.00 | 2-Sided | 95 | -1.26 | -0.73 | Superiority |
| Week 4 |
|
|
| Week 8 |
|
|
| Week 12 |
|
|
| 0.6562 |
| Adjusted Mean Difference |
| -1.81 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -9.84 |
| 6.22 |
| Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 8 | ANCOVA | 0.3862 | Adjusted Mean Difference | -4.13 | 2-Sided | 95 | -13.53 | 5.27 | Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 12 | ANCOVA | 0.0759 | Adjusted Mean Difference | -9.32 | 2-Sided | 95 | -19.62 | 0.99 | Superiority |
| Week 4 |
|
|
| Week 8 |
|
|
| Week 12 |
|
|
| 0.0067 |
| Adjusted Mean Difference |
| 9.35 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| 2.64 |
| 16.06 |
| Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 8 | ANCOVA | 0.0011 | Adjusted Mean Difference | 11.59 | 2-Sided | 95 | 4.73 | 18.46 | Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 12 | ANCOVA | <0.0001 | Adjusted Mean Difference | 20.78 | 2-Sided | 95 | 11.33 | 30.23 | Superiority |
| Week 4 |
|
|
| Week 8 |
|
|
| Week 12 |
|
|
| 0.2117 |
| Adjusted Mean Difference |
| 0.13 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -0.08 |
| 0.34 |
| Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 8 | ANCOVA | 0.1443 | Adjusted Mean Difference | 0.18 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.06 | 0.43 | Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 12 | ANCOVA | 0.0645 | Adjusted Mean Difference | 0.25 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.02 | 0.51 | Superiority |
| Week 4 |
|
|
| Week 8 |
|
|
| Week 12 |
|
|
| 0.7215 |
| Adjusted Mean Difference |
| 1.41 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -6.41 |
| 9.23 |
| Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 8 | ANCOVA | 0.8504 | Adjusted Mean Difference | -0.87 | 2-Sided | 95 | -9.97 | 8.24 | Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 12 | ANCOVA | 0.9332 | Adjusted Mean Difference | -0.43 | 2-Sided | 95 | -10.46 | 9.61 | Superiority |
| Week 4 |
|
|
| Week 8 |
|
|
| Week 12 |
|
|
| 0.8935 |
| Adjusted Mean Difference |
| -0.44 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -6.98 |
| 6.09 |
| Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 8 | ANCOVA | 0.4369 | Adjusted Mean Difference | 2.62 | 2-Sided | 95 | -4.03 | 9.26 | Superiority |
| Change from Baseline at Week 12 | ANCOVA | 0.5060 | Adjusted Mean Difference | 3.10 | 2-Sided | 95 | -6.10 | 12.30 | Superiority |