01
Testing source
The testing was conducted by LineTab's manufacturer.
Manufacturer-conducted technical report · TQ120-001R.Rev0
Dental waterline tablet laboratory comparison
The full report compares tested samples of BluTab, A-dec ICX, and a 49 mg NaDCC tablet supplied for LineTab. We publish the methods and results together with the limitations and apparent discrepancies below so the report can be read in context.
11
3
1
TQ120-001R.Rev0
February 12, 2026
Conducted by LineTab's manufacturer
Testing source
The study was conducted by LineTab's manufacturer.
BluTab, A-dec, and ICX are used only to identify the products tested; all third-party names and marks belong to their respective owners. Those owners did not sponsor, approve, or endorse this report or LineTab. The report describes specific samples and test conditions. It does not establish clinical superiority, performance in every dental unit, or the performance of later or differently formulated products.
Read before the results
Material limitations
These limitations come from the report itself or from information it does not provide. They constrain what can reasonably be concluded from the comparison.
02
Bench testing, not clinical use
The reported suspension and carrier tests were performed under laboratory conditions. The report does not describe a dental-unit field trial, patient outcomes, long-term waterline performance, or biofilm removal.
03
Different test preparation
BluTab and A-dec ICX were prepared at one tablet in 700 mL. The NaDCC tablet was prepared at one tablet in 750 mL. The report says the preparations were based on related labels, but it does not establish that every condition was equivalent.
04
BluTab testing was not contemporaneous
The report states that BluTab was tested in a different week using older, weakened microbial strains and says this may have influenced its log-reduction data.
05
Carrier drying affected the method
The carrier solution dried before 60 minutes, so the longer carrier endpoint was shortened to 45 minutes. The report says drying can depress results and introduce product-specific bias.
06
Important details are not reported
The report lists no acceptance criterion, does not identify competitor lot numbers, and does not state the microbiological replicate count, define the error bars, or report a statistical significance analysis.
Publisher’s note
Apparent document discrepancies
The PDF is reproduced without correcting the underlying report. The following items are called out so readers do not have to infer which value or description controls.
Report page 7
The text calls the 2.21 mm A-dec ICX tablet “slightly thinner” than the 2.17 mm BluTab tablet; the table shows it is slightly thicker.
Report pages 7 and 9
The discussion describes pH 6.404 and 6.601 as basic or mildly basic. Both values are below neutral pH 7.
Figure 2 and report page 8
Figure 2 labels the NaDCC result for P. aeruginosa at 60 minutes as 3.46 log reduction; the discussion states 3.66.
Approval page
One approval is dated May 5, 2025, before the stated February 12, 2026 report date. Readers should confirm whether that date is correct.
Source document
Read the complete report
Review the method, tables, figures, discussion, approval page, and the disclosures above together. Do not rely on an isolated chart or conclusion without the test conditions and limitations.
See a factual error, have evidence that a tested product has changed, or need the basis for a statement clarified? Tell us and identify the report page and claim.
Report a concern