Saqib Ali1, Imran Farooq1, Ahmad M Al-Thobity2, Khalifa S Al-Khalifa3, Khalid Alhooshani4, Salvatore Sauro5,6. 1. Department of Biomedical Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. 2. Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. 3. Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. 4. Department of Chemistry, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 5. Departamento de Odontología, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad CEU-Cardenal Herrera, C/Del Pozos/n, Alfara del Patriarca, Valencia, Spain. 6. Department of Therapeutic Dentistry, Sechenov University Russia, Moscow, Russia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many novel biomaterials have been incorporated in toothpastes to promote remineralization of tooth structure. OBJECTIVES: This study was carried out to compare the discrepancies between declared and actual total fluoride (TF) or total soluble fluoride (TSF) concentration of two modern toothpastes containing bioactive glasses; these were also assessed for their remineralization potential. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The TF and TSF concentration were assessed using a fluoride ion selective electrode. Enamel remineralization was evaluated through micro-hardness analysis. Eighteen enamel blocks were divided into three groups: 1 (n = 6; control), 2 (n = 6; Novamin® toothpaste), and 3 (n = 6; BiominF® toothpaste). The specimens were demineralized by 6 wt% citric acid (pH = 2.2). Subsequently, the specimens in group 1 were kept in artificial saliva (AS), while the specimens in groups 2 and 3 were stored in AS + Novamin® and AS + Biomin®, respectively. RESULTS: Both Novamin® or BiominF® showed less TF concentration than their label claims. BiominF® had more TF and TSF compared to Novamin® (p < 0.05). The BiominF® toothpaste presented higher micro-hardness values on remineralization. CONCLUSION: BiominF® toothpaste demonstrated more fluoride content and greater potential to promote remineralization of demineralized human enamel compared to Novamin®.
BACKGROUND: Many novel biomaterials have been incorporated in toothpastes to promote remineralization of tooth structure. OBJECTIVES: This study was carried out to compare the discrepancies between declared and actual total fluoride (TF) or total soluble fluoride (TSF) concentration of two modern toothpastes containing bioactive glasses; these were also assessed for their remineralization potential. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The TF and TSF concentration were assessed using a fluoride ion selective electrode. Enamel remineralization was evaluated through micro-hardness analysis. Eighteen enamel blocks were divided into three groups: 1 (n = 6; control), 2 (n = 6; Novamin® toothpaste), and 3 (n = 6; BiominF® toothpaste). The specimens were demineralized by 6 wt% citric acid (pH = 2.2). Subsequently, the specimens in group 1 were kept in artificial saliva (AS), while the specimens in groups 2 and 3 were stored in AS + Novamin® and AS + Biomin®, respectively. RESULTS: Both Novamin® or BiominF® showed less TF concentration than their label claims. BiominF® had more TF and TSF compared to Novamin® (p < 0.05). The BiominF® toothpaste presented higher micro-hardness values on remineralization. CONCLUSION: BiominF® toothpaste demonstrated more fluoride content and greater potential to promote remineralization of demineralized human enamel compared to Novamin®.