BACKGROUND: Researchers have proposed the use of fluoride for the prevention of enamel wear; however, only limited information is available about the impact of fluoridated dentifrices. Because tooth wear is a well-recognized dental problem, the authors conducted an in situ, ex vivo study to assess the efficacy of a highly concentrated fluoride dentifrice on bovine enamel subjected to erosion and abrasion. METHODS: The authors conducted a double-blind, crossover in situ study consisting of three phases (seven days each). In each phase, the authors tested one of the dentifrices (5,000 parts per million fluoride [F]; 1,100 ppm F; no F). They performed erosive challenges with the use of cola drink (60 seconds, four times per day) and abrasive challenges via toothbrushing (30 seconds, four times per day). The authors determined the enamel loss via profilometry. RESULTS: The authors tested the data by using two-way analysis of variance (P < .05). For the erosion-plus-abrasion condition, the study results showed that enamel wear was significantly higher than that with erosion alone. The findings showed no significant differences between the dentifrices regarding enamel wear. CONCLUSIONS: Within the in situ, ex vivo conditions of this study, the authors concluded that the highly concentrated fluoride dentifrice did not have a protective effect on enamel against erosion and erosion plus toothbrushing abrasion. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patients at risk of developing enamel erosion should benefit from preventive measures other than fluoride dentifrice, because even a highly concentrated fluoride dentifrice does not appear to prevent enamel erosion.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Researchers have proposed the use of fluoride for the prevention of enamel wear; however, only limited information is available about the impact of fluoridated dentifrices. Because tooth wear is a well-recognized dental problem, the authors conducted an in situ, ex vivo study to assess the efficacy of a highly concentrated fluoride dentifrice on bovine enamel subjected to erosion and abrasion. METHODS: The authors conducted a double-blind, crossover in situ study consisting of three phases (seven days each). In each phase, the authors tested one of the dentifrices (5,000 parts per million fluoride [F]; 1,100 ppm F; no F). They performed erosive challenges with the use of cola drink (60 seconds, four times per day) and abrasive challenges via toothbrushing (30 seconds, four times per day). The authors determined the enamel loss via profilometry. RESULTS: The authors tested the data by using two-way analysis of variance (P < .05). For the erosion-plus-abrasion condition, the study results showed that enamel wear was significantly higher than that with erosion alone. The findings showed no significant differences between the dentifrices regarding enamel wear. CONCLUSIONS: Within the in situ, ex vivo conditions of this study, the authors concluded that the highly concentrated fluoride dentifrice did not have a protective effect on enamel against erosion and erosion plus toothbrushing abrasion. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patients at risk of developing enamel erosion should benefit from preventive measures other than fluoride dentifrice, because even a highly concentrated fluoride dentifrice does not appear to prevent enamel erosion.
Authors: Meire Coelho Ferreira; Maria Letícia Ramos-Jorge; Alberto Carlos Botazzo Delbem; Ricardo de Sousa Vieirac Journal: Open Dent J Date: 2013-09-30