Assessment of the Efficacy of an Experimental Occlusion Technology Dentifrice in Dentinal Hypersensitivity

A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of an Experimental Occlusion Technology Dentifrice in the Relief of Dentinal Hypersensitivity

This study will evaluate the effectiveness of an experimental dentifrice containing stannous fluoride, an established dentine tubule occlusion technology, at reducing dentine hypersensitivity (DH) compared to a negative control dentifrice. The test and control dentifrices will be administered for a total of 8 weeks, with assessments (via evaporative air and tactile stimuli) at baseline, and after 4 and 8 weeks twice-daily use.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Dentin Sensitivity
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Stannous fluoride (SnF2); Other: Sodium monofluorophosphate (SMFP)

Detailed Description

This single centre, randomized, controlled, examiner-blind, 2 treatment arm, parallel group design study, stratified by maximum baseline Schiff sensitivity score (of the two selected teeth), with a treatment period of 8 weeks will investigate the clinical effectiveness of an experimental stannous fluoride dentifrice in the reduction of DH. DH will be assessed at Baseline, and after 4 and 8 weeks treatment to monitor clinical efficacy and safety.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 135
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• China
  • Wuhan, China, 430079
    • GSK Investigational Site

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 16 years to 63 years (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria

• Demonstrates understanding of the study procedures, restrictions and willingness to participate as evidenced by voluntary written informed consent and has received a signed and dated copy of the informed consent form
• Aged between 18 and 65 years inclusive
• Understands and is willing, able and likely to comply with all study procedures and restrictions.
• Good general and mental health with, in the opinion of the investigator or medically qualified designee: No clinically significant and relevant abnormalities in medical history or upon oral examination and absence of any condition that would impact on the participant's safety or well being or affect the individual's ability to understand and follow study procedures and requirements.
• At Screening-
• Self-reported history of dentinal hypersensitivity (DH) lasting more than six months but not more than 10 years.
• Good general oral health, with a minimum of 20 natural teeth.
• Minimum of 2 accessible non-adjacent teeth (incisors, canines, pre-molars), preferably in different quadrants, that meet all of the following criteria; signs of facial/cervical gingival recession and/or signs of erosion or abrasion (EAR), tooth with MGI score =0 adjacent to the test area (exposed dentine) only and a clinical mobility of ≤1 and tooth with signs of sensitivity measured by qualifying evaporative air assessment (Schiff sensitivity score ≥1).
• At Baseline (Visit 2)-
• Minimum of two, non-adjacent accessible teeth (incisors, canines, premolars), that meet all of the following criteria i.e.
• Tooth with signs of sensitivity, measured by response to a qualifying tactile stimulus (Yeaple ≤ 20g) and evaporative air assessment (Schiff sensitivity score ≥ 2).

Exclusion Criteria

• Women who are known to be pregnant or who are intending to become pregnant over the duration of the study.
• Women who are breast-feeding.
• Known or suspected intolerance or hypersensitivity to the study materials (or closely related compounds) or any of their stated ingredients.
• Participation in another clinical study (including cosmetic studies) or receipt of an investigational drug within 30 days of the screening visit, previous participation in this study and participation in another tooth desensitizing treatment study within 8 weeks of the screening visit.
• Recent history (within the last year) of alcohol or other substance abuse.
• An employee of the sponsor or the study site or members of their immediate family.
• Presence of chronic debilitating disease which, in the opinion of the investigator, could affect study outcomes, presence of a condition which, in the opinion of the investigator is causing xerostomia.
• Dental prophylaxis within 4 weeks of Screening, tongue or lip piercing or presence of dental implants and gross periodontal disease, treatment of periodontal disease (including surgery) within 12 months of Screening, scaling or root planning within 3 months of Screening.
• Teeth bleaching within 8 weeks of Screening.
• Desensitising treatment within 8 weeks of screening (professional sensitivity treatments and non-dentifrice sensitivity treatments).
• Specific Dentition Exclusions For Test Teeth
• a) Tooth with evidence of current or recent caries, or reported treatment of decay within 12 months of Screening
• b) Tooth with exposed dentine but with deep, defective or facial restorations, teeth used as abutments for fixed or removable partial dentures, teeth with full crowns or veneers, orthodontic bands or cracked enamel. Sensitive teeth with contributing aetiologies other than erosion, abrasion or recession of exposed dentine.
• C) Sensitive tooth not expected to respond to treatment with an over-the-counter dentifrice in the opinion of the investigator.
• Use of an oral care product indicated for the relief of dentine hypersensitivity within 8 weeks of screening (Participants will be required to bring their current oral care products to the site in order to verify the absence of known anti-sensitivity ingredients).
• Any subject who, in the judgment of the investigator, should not participate in the study, any condition which in the opinion of the investigator would impact on the subject's safety or wellbeing or affect the individual's ability to understand and follow study procedures and requirements.
• Daily doses of medication/treatments or traditional herbal ingredients/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, tranquilisers, anti-depressants, mood-altering and anti-inflammatory drugs and 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 conditions).
• Currently taking antibiotics or has taken antibiotics within 2 weeks of Baseline.
• Daily dose of a medication which, in the opinion of the investigator, is causing xerostomia.
• Individuals who require antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Test Dentifrice: Stannous fluoride (SnF2); Participants were instructed to apply a strip of dentifrice containing 0.454% stannous fluoride (SnF2) and 0.072% sodium fluoride (NaF) (1450 parts per million [ppm] fluoride in total) to cover the head of the toothbrush and brush their teeth for 1 timed minute, twice daily (morning and evening), following their normal routine. Participants were also permitted to rinse with tap water.	Other: Stannous fluoride (SnF2); Dentifrice containing 0.454% weight by weight (w/w) SnF2 and 0.072% w/w NaF
Active Comparator: Negative Control Dentifrice: Sodium monofluorophosphate (SMFP); Participants were instructed to apply a strip of dentifrice containing 1400ppm fluoride as sodium monofluorophosphate (SMFP) to cover the head of the toothbrush and brush their teeth for 1 timed minute, twice daily (morning and evening), following their normal routine. Participants were also permitted to rinse with tap water.	Other: Sodium monofluorophosphate (SMFP); Dentifrice containing 1400 ppm fluoride as SMFP

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Change From Baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Week 8	The examiner assessed the participant's response to the evaporative air stimulus, after the stimulation of each individual tooth, using the Schiff Sensitivity Scale as follows: 0 Participant does not respond to air stimulation, 1 Participant responds to air stimulus but does not request discontinuation of stimulus, 2 Participant responds to air stimulus and requests discontinuation or moves from stimulus, 3 Participant responds to stimulus, considers stimulus to be painful and requests discontinuation of the stimulus. A reduction in Schiff Sensitivity score indicate improvement in sensitivity.	At Baseline and Week 8

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Change From Baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Week 4	The examiner assessed the participant's response to the evaporative air stimulus, after the stimulation of each individual tooth, using the Schiff Sensitivity Scale as follows: 0 Participant does not respond to air stimulation, 1 Participant responds to air stimulus but does not request discontinuation of stimulus, 2 Participant responds to air stimulus and requests discontinuation or moves from stimulus, 3 Participant responds to stimulus, considers stimulus to be painful and requests discontinuation of the stimulus. A reduction in Schiff Sensitivity score indicate improvement in sensitivity.	At Baseline and Week 4
Change From Baseline in Tactile Threshold at Week 4 and 8	The examiner assessed the response to tactile sensitivity using a Yeaple probe which allowed application of a known force to the dentin surface, starting at 10g and rising in increments of 10g until the tactile threshold or maximum force has reached. The tactile threshold for each tooth was determined by asking the participant whether the sensation caused discomfort. The pressure setting at which the participant gave two consecutive 'yes' responses was recorded as the tactile threshold. The higher the tactile threshold, the less sensitive the tooth. At baseline, the maximum force used was 20g; at all subsequent visits, it was 80g.	At Baseline, Week 4 and Week 8

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: GlaxoSmithKline

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): September 21, 2016
• Primary Completion (Actual): December 1, 2016
• Study Completion (Actual): December 24, 2016

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: August 5, 2016
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: August 5, 2016
• First Posted (Estimate): August 10, 2016

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): August 10, 2018
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: June 15, 2018
• Last Verified: June 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Immune System Diseases; Stomatognathic Diseases; Tooth Diseases; Hypersensitivity; Dentin Sensitivity; Physiological Effects of Drugs; Protective Agents; Cariostatic Agents; Fluorides; Tin Fluorides; Fluorophosphate
• Other Study ID Numbers: 205794