JDR Woodhead Publishing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burns, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Elswick, R. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Burns, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Elswick, R. K., Jr

Journal of Dental Research, Vol 80, 1513-1517, Copyright © 2001 by International & American Associations for Dental Research Online Journals


ARTICLES

Equivalence testing with dental clinical trials

D. R. Burns and R. K. Elswick Jr
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond 23298-0566, USA. Dburns@den1.den.vcu.edu

Clinical trials whose purpose are to show equivalence of two or more treatments have traditionally utilized methods for demonstrating superiority, and, if no statistical differences are found, the treatments are assumed to be equivalent. Methods for directly demonstrating equivalence have been developed by the pharmaceutical industry to establish the bioequivalence between drug formulations. This approach should have significant future implications for dental research. It is presently well-characterized in the statistical literature, but is virtually unknown within the dental literature and has had limited documented application with dental clinical trials. The purpose of this paper is to consider equivalence testing with dental clinical trials. Equivalence and superiority testing are contrasted, and comparisons between parallel and crossover designs with equivalence testing are discussed. To exemplify equivalency trial methodology for dental research application, several examples are proposed, including, in detail, an implant overdenture clinical trial to test the equivalence of treatment outcome between a two- and a four-implant overdenture treatment. Sample size calculations for otherwise-identical crossover and parallel equivalence studies are demonstrated. Results show that for a power of 0.90, a sample size of 24 is required for the crossover trial and over 150 subjects for the parallel design. For this dental research application, the equivalence/crossover design methodology is shown to be an efficient and appropriate approach.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
V. Conraads
Beneficial effects of simvastatin and pravastatin on cardiac allograft rejection and survival
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 4, 2003; 41(11): 2104 - 2104.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
IADR Journals Advances in Dental Research ®
Journal of Dental Research ® Critical Reviews (1990-2004)
Copyright © 2001 Institutional Access Guidelines