Literature DB >> 21256403

Evaluation of mouthrinse and dentifrice regimens in an in situ erosion remineralisation model.

Brenda Maggio1, Rita G Guibert, Stephen C Mason, Ritu Karwal, Gareth D Rees, Sue Kelly, Domenick T Zero.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of dentifrice/mouthrinse regimens in a clinical in situ erosion remineralisation model.
METHODS: Thirty-six subjects completed a randomised single-blind cross-over trial of five treatment regimens. R1: Dentifrice A [1450 ppm fluoride as the sodium salt (NaF), 50000 ppm potassium nitrate (KNO(3))] plus 450 ppm fluoride (NaF) rinse; R2: Dentifrice A plus sterile water rinse; R3: Dentifrice B (fluoride-free Dentifrice A) plus sterile water rinse; R4: Dentifrice B plus 450 ppm fluoride (NaF) rinse; R5: Dentifrice C (1000 ppm fluorine as sodium monofluorophosphate, 450 ppm fluoride as NaF) plus sterile water rinse. Subjects wore a palatal appliance holding eight pre-demineralised enamel blocks. A 60 min interval separated in vivo use of dentifrice and rinse with the appliance retained in situ for 4h. Efficacy endpoints were percentage surface microhardness recovery (%SMHR) following remineralisation, and percentage relative erosion resistance (%RER) of recovered specimens following a subsequent in vitro erosive challenge. Statistical analyses included ANOVA and selected twin-tailed t-tests.
RESULTS: Mean %SMHR (±SE) was (a)42.14±1.39, (b)38.02±1.39, (c)30.57±1.39, (b)37.75±1.39 and (c)30.88±1.39 for regimens R1-R5 respectively (different superscripts denote statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between treatment regimens). Mean %RER (±SE) was (a)-2.88±2.16, (b)-14.54±2.16, (c)-40.05±2.16, (a)-3.76±2.16 and (d)-29.48±2.16 for regimens R1-R5 respectively. R1 elicited statistically significantly greater %SMHR versus all comparator regimens (p<0.01), and conferred statistically significantly greater %RER than comparator regimens (p<0.0001) except R4 (p=0.70).
CONCLUSIONS: The combination treatment of dentifrice A containing 1450 ppm fluoride with the 450 ppm fluoride mouthrinse elicited significant enhancements in rehardening of incipient enamel erosive lesions, and significantly increased their subsequent resistance to a second erosive challenge. Copyright Â
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21256403     DOI: 10.1016/S0300-5712(11)70007-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent        ISSN: 0300-5712            Impact factor:   4.379


  5 in total

1.  Comparison of calcium-based technologies to remineralise enamel subsurface lesions using microradiography and microhardness.

Authors:  James R Fernando; Glenn D Walker; Thomas Kwan-Soo Park; Peiyan Shen; Yi Yuan; Coralie Reynolds; Eric C Reynolds
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 4.996

Review 2.  Chitosan Biomaterials for Current and Potential Dental Applications.

Authors:  Shehriar Husain; Khalid H Al-Samadani; Shariq Najeeb; Muhammad S Zafar; Zohaib Khurshid; Sana Zohaib; Saad B Qasim
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 3.623

3.  Effects of a Novel Dental Gel on Enamel Surface Recovery from Acid Challenge.

Authors:  Tracie Lam; Jessica Ho; Afarin Golabgir Anbarani; Lih-Huei Liaw; Thair Takesh; Petra Wilder-Smith
Journal:  Dentistry (Sunnyvale)       Date:  2016-10-25

4.  Effects of a Novel Mouthwash on Dental Remineralization.

Authors:  Janet Ajdaharian; Thair Takesh; Afarin Anbarani; Jessica Ho; Petra Wilder-Smith
Journal:  Dentistry (Sunnyvale)       Date:  2017-05-05

5.  A Nanomechanical Investigation of Three Putative Anti-Erosion Agents: Remineralisation and Protection against Demineralisation.

Authors:  Ahmed Z Abdullah; Anthony J Ireland; Jonathan R Sandy; Michele E Barbour
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2012-08-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.