OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative ability of various F-containing products to protect enamel against the initiation and progression of tooth surface loss due to erosive acid challenges. METHODS: Cores of enamel were prepared from extracted human teeth, soaked in pooled human saliva (pellicle formation), and then treated in a 1:3 slurry (product:saliva) of either OTC level (1100 ppm F) or prescription level (5000 ppm F) products, followed by a standardized erosion cycling procedure (five days of cycling) that included 10-minute challenges with an erosive dietary acid (1% citric acid at pH 2.3) applied 60 minutes after each dentifrice treatment (repeated four times per day). Enamel surface loss was measured using transverse microradiography. Two studies were conducted. Study 1 included: A) 1100 ppm F as NaF; B) 1100 ppm F as stabilized SnF; C) 5000 ppm F as NaF; and D) 5000 ppm F as NaF + acidulated phosphate. Study 2 included: 1) 1100 ppm F as stabilized SnF; 2) 5000 ppm F as NaF + tricalcium phosphate; and 3) 1100 ppm F as NaF. RESULTS: Study 1: Treatment B (1100 ppm F as SnF), where specimens lost only 8.0 μm of the enamel surface, was significantly more effective than Treatments A, C, and D at protecting enamel against the initiation and progression of erosive acid damage (p < 0.05). Specimens treated with product A exhibited 22.8 (1.25) μm (mean ± sem) of enamel loss; 20.0 (0.71) μm of enamel loss with treatment C and 24.0 (1.4) μm of enamel loss with Treatment D. Study 2 also demonstrated significantly greater erosion protection with the stabilized SnF2 dentifrice (p < 0.05), with only 5.8 (1.93) μm of tooth surface loss, while groups 2 and 3 lost 19.8 (0.75) μm and 18.0 (2.16) μm, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results from both studies demonstrated the OTC dentifrice formulated with stabilized SnF2 provides significantly greater protection against erosive acid attack compared to some of the most popular prescription level (5000 ppm F) fluoride treatments available.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative ability of various F-containing products to protect enamel against the initiation and progression of tooth surface loss due to erosive acid challenges. METHODS: Cores of enamel were prepared from extracted human teeth, soaked in pooled human saliva (pellicle formation), and then treated in a 1:3 slurry (product:saliva) of either OTC level (1100 ppm F) or prescription level (5000 ppm F) products, followed by a standardized erosion cycling procedure (five days of cycling) that included 10-minute challenges with an erosive dietary acid (1% citric acid at pH 2.3) applied 60 minutes after each dentifrice treatment (repeated four times per day). Enamel surface loss was measured using transverse microradiography. Two studies were conducted. Study 1 included: A) 1100 ppm F as NaF; B) 1100 ppm F as stabilized SnF; C) 5000 ppm F as NaF; and D) 5000 ppm F as NaF + acidulated phosphate. Study 2 included: 1) 1100 ppm F as stabilized SnF; 2) 5000 ppm F as NaF + tricalcium phosphate; and 3) 1100 ppm F as NaF. RESULTS: Study 1: Treatment B (1100 ppm F as SnF), where specimens lost only 8.0 μm of the enamel surface, was significantly more effective than Treatments A, C, and D at protecting enamel against the initiation and progression of erosive acid damage (p < 0.05). Specimens treated with product A exhibited 22.8 (1.25) μm (mean ± sem) of enamel loss; 20.0 (0.71) μm of enamel loss with treatment C and 24.0 (1.4) μm of enamel loss with Treatment D. Study 2 also demonstrated significantly greater erosion protection with the stabilized SnF2 dentifrice (p < 0.05), with only 5.8 (1.93) μm of tooth surface loss, while groups 2 and 3 lost 19.8 (0.75) μm and 18.0 (2.16) μm, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results from both studies demonstrated the OTC dentifrice formulated with stabilized SnF2 provides significantly greater protection against erosive acid attack compared to some of the most popular prescription level (5000 ppm F) fluoride treatments available.
Authors: A Kensche; J Kirsch; S Mintert; F Enders; S Pötschke; S Basche; B König; C Hannig; M Hannig Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 4.379