Skip to main content

Table 3 Differences between treatments at 2 and 4 h post-treatment (mITT population; n = 62)

From: In situ efficacy of an experimental toothpaste on enamel rehardening and prevention of demineralisation: a randomised, controlled trial

Time- pointTreatment comparisonDifferences between treatments (adjusted mean with 95% CI); p-valuea,b
%SMHR%REREFU (μg F/cm2)ARR
2 hTest vs Placebo5.62 (2.80, 8.43) 0.000136.41 (31.65, 41.18)  < 0.00011.65 (1.41, 1.88) < 0.00010.31 (0.26, 0.35) < 0.0001
Test vs Ref3.90 (1.09, 6.72) 0.007012.60 (7.84, 17.36) < 0.00010.95 (0.72, 1.19) < 0.00010.09 (0.04, 0.13) 0.0002
Ref vs Placebo1.71 (−1.10, 4.53) 0.230323.8 (19.05, 28.58) < 0.00010.69 (0.46, 0.93) < 0.00010.22 (0.18, 0.27) < 0.0001
4 hTest vs Placebo7.69 (5.18 10.19) < 0.000133.29 (28.89, 37.68) < 0.00011.81 (1.59, 2.04) < 0.00010.26 (0.21, 0.30) < 0.0001
Test vs Ref7.57 (5.07, 10.07) < 0.000110.98 (6.58, 15.37) < 0.00010.97 (0.75, 1.20) < 0.00010.03 (−0.01, 0.08) 0.1071
Ref vs Placebo0.12 (−2.38, 2.62) 0.925922.3 (17.92, 26.70) < 0.00010.84 (0.62, 1.06) < 0.00010.22 (0.18, 0.26) < 0.0001
  1. aFrom ANOVA model with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.
  2. bDifference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment, a positive difference favours first-named treatment.
  3. Statistically significant comparisons are highlighted in bold.
  4. Ref: Reference toothpaste.