OBJECTIVE: To compare the enamel protection efficacy of a stabilized stannous fluoride (SnF2 ) dentifrice to a sodium fluoride (NaF)/triclosan dentifrice following acidic erosive challenge. METHODS: In this in situ, randomized, controlled, double-blind, two-treatment, four-period crossover clinical trial, subjects wore an appliance fitted with human enamel samples 6 h day-1 during each 15-day treatment period. Twice each treatment day they swished with their assigned dentifrice slurry: 0.454% SnF2 /0.077% NaF or 0.32% NaF/0.3% triclosan. After each treatment and two other times daily, subjects swished with 250 ml of orange juice over a 10-min period (acidic erosive challenge). Enamel samples were measured for tooth surface loss using contact profilometry at baseline and days 10 and 15. RESULTS:Thirty-six subjects (mean age 44.8 years, range 23-65 years) were randomized to treatment; 33 subjects completed the final study visit. There were no statistically significant baseline differences (P > 0.44) in the specimen surfaces of the two dentifrice treatment groups via profilometry. At day 10, the SnF2 dentifrice provided a statistically significant (P < 0.0001) reduction in enamel loss by 67% versus the NaF/triclosan dentifrice with estimated medians of 1.22 and 3.68 μm, respectively. At day 15, the SnF2 dentifrice again provided a significantly greater benefit (P < 0.0001) against tooth surface loss versus the NaF/triclosan dentifrice, with 68% less erosion, and estimated medians of 1.60 and 5.03 μm, respectively. Both dentifrices were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: A stabilized SnF2 dentifrice provided superior protection against the initiation and progression of tooth enamel surface loss in situ after erosive challenge compared to a NaF/triclosan dentifrice.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the enamel protection efficacy of a stabilized stannous fluoride (SnF2 ) dentifrice to a sodium fluoride (NaF)/triclosan dentifrice following acidic erosive challenge. METHODS: In this in situ, randomized, controlled, double-blind, two-treatment, four-period crossover clinical trial, subjects wore an appliance fitted with human enamel samples 6 h day-1 during each 15-day treatment period. Twice each treatment day they swished with their assigned dentifrice slurry: 0.454% SnF2 /0.077% NaF or 0.32% NaF/0.3% triclosan. After each treatment and two other times daily, subjects swished with 250 ml of orange juice over a 10-min period (acidic erosive challenge). Enamel samples were measured for tooth surface loss using contact profilometry at baseline and days 10 and 15. RESULTS: Thirty-six subjects (mean age 44.8 years, range 23-65 years) were randomized to treatment; 33 subjects completed the final study visit. There were no statistically significant baseline differences (P > 0.44) in the specimen surfaces of the two dentifrice treatment groups via profilometry. At day 10, the SnF2 dentifrice provided a statistically significant (P < 0.0001) reduction in enamel loss by 67% versus the NaF/triclosan dentifrice with estimated medians of 1.22 and 3.68 μm, respectively. At day 15, the SnF2 dentifrice again provided a significantly greater benefit (P < 0.0001) against tooth surface loss versus the NaF/triclosan dentifrice, with 68% less erosion, and estimated medians of 1.60 and 5.03 μm, respectively. Both dentifrices were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: A stabilized SnF2 dentifrice provided superior protection against the initiation and progression of tooth enamel surface loss in situ after erosive challenge compared to a NaF/triclosan dentifrice.