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

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

Time- point	Treatment comparison	Differences between treatments (adjusted mean with 95% CI); p-value^a,b
Time- point	Treatment comparison	%SMHR	%RER	EFU (μg F/cm²)	ARR
2 h	Test vs Placebo	5.62 (2.80, 8.43) 0.0001	36.41 (31.65, 41.18) < 0.0001	1.65 (1.41, 1.88) < 0.0001	0.31 (0.26, 0.35) < 0.0001
	Test vs Ref	3.90 (1.09, 6.72) 0.0070	12.60 (7.84, 17.36) < 0.0001	0.95 (0.72, 1.19) < 0.0001	0.09 (0.04, 0.13) 0.0002
	Ref vs Placebo	1.71 (−1.10, 4.53) 0.2303	23.8 (19.05, 28.58) < 0.0001	0.69 (0.46, 0.93) < 0.0001	0.22 (0.18, 0.27) < 0.0001
4 h	Test vs Placebo	7.69 (5.18 10.19) < 0.0001	33.29 (28.89, 37.68) < 0.0001	1.81 (1.59, 2.04) < 0.0001	0.26 (0.21, 0.30) < 0.0001
	Test vs Ref	7.57 (5.07, 10.07) < 0.0001	10.98 (6.58, 15.37) < 0.0001	0.97 (0.75, 1.20) < 0.0001	0.03 (−0.01, 0.08) 0.1071
	Ref vs Placebo	0.12 (−2.38, 2.62) 0.9259	22.3 (17.92, 26.70) < 0.0001	0.84 (0.62, 1.06) < 0.0001	0.22 (0.18, 0.26) < 0.0001

^aFrom ANOVA model with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.
^bDifference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment, a positive difference favours first-named treatment.
Statistically significant comparisons are highlighted in bold.
Ref: Reference toothpaste.

ISSN: 1472-6831