Efficacy of Eco-Friendly Toothpaste Tablets Versus Conventional Toothpaste Using PI and GI Index

Loma Linda University40 enrolled

Overview

Objectives: To assess the change in gingival index (GI) and plaque index (PI) when comparing the use of toothpaste tablets to conventional toothpaste. Methods: 40 participants were randomized into two groups: Colgate's toothpaste tablets (T) and Colgate's Cavity Protection toothpaste (C). Both groups utilized their assigned dentifrice for 2 weeks. A pre and post-assessment measured the GI and PI index. A questionnaire on the use of the product was distributed.

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

PREVENTION

Masking

SINGLE

Enrollment

Conditions

Gingival Inflammation

Interventions

Toothpaste TabletDRUG

Colgate Anywhere Toothpaste Tablets

Conventional ToothpasteDRUG

Colgate Cavity Protection

Eligibility

Sex: ALLMin age: 18 YearsHealthy volunteers:

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: 1. Subjects are 18 years or older; 2. Subjects who will comply with study protocol; 3. Subjects who can read and understand the consent form; 4. Subjects available during the study period; 5. Subjects have more than 20 teeth. Exclusion Criteria: 1. Subjects who are pregnant and/or nursing; 2. Subjects under the age of 18.

Locations (1)

Loma Linda University

Loma Linda, California, United States

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Plaque Index Score at Baseline

Plaque was scored according to the Turesky modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index. Each tooth was divided into six surfaces, three facial and three lingual, as follows: 1) mesio-facial; 2) mid-facial; 3) disto-facial; 4) mesio-lingual; 5) mid-lingual; and 6) disto-lingual. Teeth included in the scoring were: #3, 7, 12, 19, 23, 28. Plaque was disclosed and scored on each tooth surface according to the following criteria: 0: No plaque. 1. Separate flecks of plaque at the cervical margin. 2. A thin, continuous band of plaque (up to 1 mm) at the cer- vical margin. 3. A band of plaque wider than 1 mm but covering less than 1/3 of the side of the crown of the tooth. 4. Plaque covering at least 1/3, but less than 2/3 of the side of the crown of the tooth. 5. Plaque covering 2/3 or more of the side of the crown of the tooth. Subject-wise scores were determined by averaging the values obtained over all scorable surfaces in the mouth.

Time frame: Change between baseline at visit 1 and visit 2, two weeks post baseline.

Gingival Index Score at Baseline

Gingivitis was scored according to the Löe-Silness Gingival Index. Each tooth was divided into six surfaces, three facial and three lingual, as follows: 1) mesio-facial; 2) mid-facial; 3) disto-facial; 4) mesio-lingual; 5) mid-lingual; and 6) disto-lingual. Teeth included in the scoring were: #3, 7, 12, 19, 23, 28. The gingiva adjacent to each tooth surface was scored as follows: 0 = Absence of inflammation. 1. = Mild inflammation-slight change in color and little change in texture. 2. = Moderate inflammation-moderate glazing, redness, edema, and hypertrophy. 3. = Severe inflammation-marked redness and hypertrophy. Tendency for spontaneous bleeding. Subject-wise scores were determined by averaging the values obtained over all scorable surfaces in the mouth.

Time frame: Change between baseline at visit 1 and visit 2, two weeks post baseline.

Secondary Outcomes

Subject Perception of Product Use

This is a composite measurement based on questionnaire response. Subjects will answer 7 questions related to cleanliness, flavor, ease of use, eco-friendliness, willingness to switch, satisfaction, texture. This is measured on a Likert Scale from 1-4. 1 represents strongly agree with overall product satisfaction. 4 represents strongly disagree with overall product satisfaction.

Data from ClinicalTrials.gov

This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.