We conducted a double blind controlled study on 100 betel users over 14-days. We compared two potential Zingo formulas against a control group (coloured water). An excerpt from the final clinical report is attached below:
For between-treatment analysis all treatment groups showed a statistically significant reduction (p<0.05) in the level of sensitivity. The comparative control group (water) showed the least variation between treatment points whilst test article 1 showed the greatest level of variation. This would indicate that current market practice of rinsing with water is not as effective as either test articles and supports claims that ‘Test Article 1 and 2 significantly improve sensitivity’ and ‘Test Article 1 and 2 are more effective than water at improving sensitivity’.
This is also supported by the within treatment analysis, where observations recorded a highly statistically significant variation between the improvements shown by both test articles compared with water (p<0.001).
Between-treatment analysis of staining showed no statistically significant difference for the control group for pre and post treatment evaluations of staining.
Both test article 1 and 2 showed statistically significant reduction in staining, as determined by direction mean values (p<0.05), under between-treatment comparisons. This supports claims that `Test article 1 and 2 significantly reduce staining caused by chewing betel’.
Test article 1 showed a significant difference to article 2 under within-treatment comparisons of staining. The mean differences indicating that test article 1 was more effective at reducing the level of staining observed.
SPQ data showed subject favourability for all 3 products as expected to support quantifiable data.
It can be concluded that for both of the test articles the claims of “Reduces staining”, “Reduces sensitivity”, “More effective than water”, “Significantly reduces staining/Sensitivity”, “Dentist Recommended” and “Dentist Approved” are valid.