Use of analysis of covariance in periodontal clinical trials

Lehnhoff, R. W.; Grainger, Robert M.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0765.1974.tb01778.x

Cited by 20 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Statistical analysis was based on whole‐mouth average MGI scores and whole‐mouth total GBI scores. The effects on MGI scores and total bleeding scores, of the experimental SnF 2 /SHMP dentifrice and the negative control dentifrice, were analysed for treatment group differences using analysis of covariance methods with the appropriate baseline value as the covariate (Lehnhoff & Grainger 1974). All statistical tests were two sided and treatment comparison results were reported as statistically significant if the test p ‐value was 0.05.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A controlled 6‐month clinical trial to study the effects of a stannous fluoride dentifrice on gingivitis

Mallatt

Mankodi²,

Bauroth³

et al. 2007

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A controlled 6‐month clinical trial to study the effects of a stannous fluoride dentifrice on gingivitis

Mallatt

Mankodi²,

Bauroth³

et al. 2007

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The data from this study were analyzed by covariance analyses (Lehnhoff & Grainger 1974) using each examiner's own baseline score as the covariate with the exception of GI examiner B who graded only at the 3month time point. Since GI examiner B had no baseline examination for use as a covariate, his data were analyzed by application of the nonparametric Wilcoxon 2-Sample Test.…”

Section: Slatislica! Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of mouthrinses containing two concentrations of chlorhexidine

Segreto

Collins

Beiswanger

et al. 1986

J of Periodontal Research

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 3‐month clinical trial was conducted to compare the effects of two concentrations of a chlorhexidine mouthrinse on gingivitis and plaque accumulation. Six hundred (600) adults were divided into three treatment groups matched for age, sex, and initial gingivitis severity. Following a thorough examination and prophylaxis at baseline, subjects were given a mouthrinse containing either 0.12% or 0.20% chlorhexidine gluconate or a placebo mouthrinse. Subjects were evaluated after 6 weeks and 3 months of mouthrinse use. After 3 months, both chlorhexidine groups showed significantly less gingivitis and plaque than the placebo group. The group using the 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse demonstrated 27–27 % less gingivitis occurrence and 28–28% less gingivitis severity than the placebo group. The 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate group also had 48–48% less gingival bleeding and 36% less plaque than the placebo group. There were no significant advantages for the 0.20% mouthrinse over the 0.12% mouthrinse. It is therefore concluded that a 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse offers the same clinical benefits as a 0.20% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse.

show abstract

“…In general, trials designed to examine a critical treatment difference (such as a 10% clinical difference between NaF and SMFP for example) are sized to be able to detect the treatment difference at 95% (alpha) and 80% (beta) confidence [71], What this means, in a practical sense, is that a genuine treatment difference of 10% would be expected to be observed as significant (p < 0.05 -95% confidence) about 8 out of 10 times. In terms of analysis, conventional methods of ANOVA or paired comparisons are typically used, and co-variance adjustment of final treatment results is becom ing more commonplace [72], Tables 6 and 7 provide detailed analyses of design variables and factors associated with clinical trials examining NaF/SMFP relative efficacy in head-to-head and dual active comparisons. Tables 3 and 4 list initial DMFS scores associ ated with each of the clinical trials, as mentioned previously.…”

Section: Study Population Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Review of the Relative Anticaries Efficacy of Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Monofluorophosphate Dentifrices

Stookey¹,

DePaola²,

Featherstone³

et al. 1993

Caries Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While there is broad consensus in the research community that fluoride dentifrices provide important anticaries benefits, debate still remains as to the most efficient form of fluoride used in toothpastes. Recently, the authors of this paper collaborated as part of a scientific advisory group whose objective was to comprehensively review all clinical information available comparing the anticaries efficacy of the two agents most widely used in fluoridated toothpastes, sodium fluoride (NaF) and sodium monofluorophosphate (SMFP). This review included a detailed analysis of each published study pertinent to the question, a comprehensive meta-analysis of all available clinical findings, and an epidemiological assessment of how anticaries benefits of dentifrices may be anticipated to propagate with time. Overall, the use of meta-analysis of head-to-head clinical comparisons between the two fluoride-active systems was found to be the most valid means for comparing the relative efficacy of NaF and SMFP dentifrices. Results of this analysis demonstrated that NaF was significantly more effective than SMFP in preventing caries (p < 0.01). While the numerical difference in efficacy between NaF and SMFP measured between 5 and 10% (total DMFS) over a 2- to 3-year clinical period, this could be expected, on theoretical grounds, to propagate to substantially larger differences (e.g. 10–20%) over 10–20 years. Hence, the difference in efficacy between these two actives was judged to be clinically important as well as statistically significant. Based upon these findings the authors recommend that NaF be used as the active system in fluoridated dentifrices whenever practically feasible. However, the authors caution that this recommendation pertains to the formulation of NaF in highly compatible abrasive systems, which must be demonstrated by critical evaluation of ionic fluoride within formulations for stability, availability and bioavailability. One additional recommendation emanating from this review is that important improvements must be made in the design, execution and reporting of future caries clinical trials in order to bring these important methods up to scientifically acceptable standards.

show abstract

Use of analysis of covariance in periodontal clinical trials

Cited by 20 publications

References 4 publications

A controlled 6‐month clinical trial to study the effects of a stannous fluoride dentifrice on gingivitis

A controlled 6‐month clinical trial to study the effects of a stannous fluoride dentifrice on gingivitis

A comparison of mouthrinses containing two concentrations of chlorhexidine

A Critical Review of the Relative Anticaries Efficacy of Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Monofluorophosphate Dentifrices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About