| Literature DB >> 35397624 |
Andrei Cristian Ionescu1, Lorenzo Degli Esposti2, Michele Iafisco2, Eugenio Brambilla3.
Abstract
Recent health care products are based on formulations claimed to provide enamel remineralization and dentinal tubules occlusion through calcium-phosphate bioactive nanocompounds (ion-doped hydroxyapatite and precursor, amorphous calcium phosphate nanoparticles). This study aimed to characterize, test, and compare for the first time the structure and performance of a representative, market-available sample of remineralizing toothpastes and topical mousses. Formulations were characterized to determine their composition and investigate the presence of bioactive compounds and doping elements. A conventional fluoride-containing toothpaste was used as reference. The enamel remineralization and efficacy of dentinal tubules occlusion by tested formulations were investigated ex vivo on human hard tissues. All formulations containing Ca-P bioactive nanocompounds showed remineralizing ability by epitaxial growth of a layer showing the morphology and composition of human hydroxyapatite. Such layers also embedded nanosilica clusters. The presence of doping elements or casein phosphopeptide seemed essential to allow such performances, especially when hydroxyapatite and amorphous calcium phosphate compounds were doped with small amounts of CO32-, F-, Mg2+, and Sr2+. Topical mousse formulations showed a higher tubules occlusion capability than toothpastes, independently from their composition. Therefore, all tested formulations could be useful in restoring tooth structures in a biomimetic way, contrasting dental demineralization processes leading to caries.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35397624 PMCID: PMC8994765 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09787-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Specified ingredients of the tested toothpastes and mousses.
| Formulation type | Name (abbrv.) | Company | Specified ingredients |
|---|---|---|---|
| Toothpaste formulation | Biosmalto caries abrasion and erosion (BT) | Curaden Healthcare, Saronno (VA), Italy | Aqua, glycerin, hydrated silica, |
| Toothpaste formulation | Biorepair Plus (RT) | Coswell, Funo (BO), Italy | Aqua, |
| Toothpaste formulation (reference) | Colgate triple action (CT) | Colgate-Palmolive, Guilford, UK | Aqua, sorbitol, hydrated silica, glycerin, sodium lauryl sulfate, PEG-12, peppermint oil, spearmint oil, cellulose gum, |
| Topical formulation (mousse) | Biosmalto Caries Protection (BM) | Curaden | Glycerin, PEG-8, silica, strontium acetate, |
| Topical formulation (mousse) | Biorepair desensitizer enamel repair (RM) | Coswell | Aqua, |
| Topical formulation (mousse) | MI Paste Plus (MM) | GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan | Aqua |
The remineralizing ingredients, including the sources of fluoride ions, are highlighted in bold.
Composition of each tested formulation resulting from freeze-drying, water-washing and acid-washing procedures.
| Formulation | Water (wt%) | Water-soluble fraction (wt%) | Water-insoluble fraction (wt%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calcium phosphate (wt%) | Silica (wt%) | |||
| BT | 52 ± 7a | 33 ± 3a | 5.0 ± 0.5a | 10 ± 1a |
| RT | 55 ± 1 | 22 ± 1 | 15 ± 1 | 9 ± 1 |
| CT (reference) | 41 ± 1 | 42 ± 2 | 0 ± 0 | 17 ± 1 |
| BM | 10 ± 1 | 78 ± 1 | 2.0 ± 0.5 | 10 ± 1 |
| RM | 63 ± 1 | 11 ± 1 | 20 ± 1 | 6 ± 1 |
| MM | 54 ± 1 | 42 ± 3 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 3.0 ± 0.5 |
Superscript (a), data published in Degli Esposti et al.[18]. Mean wt% for each group is shown ± 1 standard deviation.
Figure 1PXRD patterns of the tested formulations.
Figure 2FT-IR spectra of the tested formulations.
Mg2+, Sr2+, Zn2+, and F content (ppm) in the whole formulations and the water-insoluble fractions.
| Formulation | Phase | Mg (ppm) | Sr (ppm) | Zn (ppm) | F (ppm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BT | Whole product | 200 ± 100 | 900 ± 100 | – | 1458 ± 25 |
| Water-insoluble fraction | 2000 ± 100 | 7200 ± 100 | – | – | |
| RT | Whole product | 110 ± 50 | – | 1800 ± 50 | – |
| Water–insoluble fraction | 440 ± 90 | – | 6600 ± 300 | – | |
| CT (reference) | Whole toothpaste | – | – | – | 1185 ± 34 |
| Water–insoluble fraction | – | – | – | – | |
| BM | Whole product | – | 12,000 ± 1000 | – | 1300 ± 16 |
| Water–insoluble fraction | – | 22,000 ± 2000 | – | – | |
| RM | Whole product | – | – | 1390 ± 10 | – |
| Water–insoluble fraction | 610 ± 90 | – | 5100 ± 400 | – | |
| MM | Whole product | – | – | – | 731 ± 33 |
| Water–insoluble fraction | – | – | – | – |
Mg2+, Sr2+, and Zn2+ were quantified by inductively-coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometer (ICP-OES), while F- was quantified by the ion-selective electrode (ISE) method. Mean ppm for each group is shown ± 1 standard deviation.
Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) compositional analysis of the surface layer (≈1 μm) of a 1 g aliquot of each toothpaste tested in the present study.
| wt% | BT | RT | CT (reference) | BM | RM | MM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | 25.53 | 26.08 | 31.29 | 24.62 | 23.96 | 39.55 |
| O | 42.69 | 43.75 | 48.83 | 36.76 | 34.19 | 47.37 |
| P | 4.93 | 4.95 | 0.00 | 5.82 | 8.04 | 1.96 |
| Ca | 9.80 | 12.12 | 0.00 | 14.18 | 20.79 | 3.92 |
| F | 0.18 | 0.00 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.20 |
| Mg | 0.35 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Zn | 0.00 | 0.27 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.22 | 0.00 |
| Sr | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3.79 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Na | 1.38 | 1.09 | 0.89 | 0.73 | 3.27 | 1.83 |
| Al | 0.32 | 0.29 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.17 |
| Si | 12.12 | 9.36 | 17.15 | 11.52 | 6.22 | 2.08 |
| S | 0.30 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 1.88 | 0.14 |
| Cl | 1.08 | 0.30 | 0.00 | 0.57 | 0.12 | 0.28 |
| K | 0.92 | 1.56 | 0.00 | 1.21 | 1.01 | 0.0 |
| Ti | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.52 | 0 | 0.00 | 2.39 |
| Ca/P (mol) | 1.54 | 1.89 | – | 1.88 | 2.00 | 1.54 |
Data are displayed as normalized wt%.
Figure 3Representative micrographs at different magnifications (2000 × , 10,000 × , and 20,000 ×) of the enamel surface after treatment with the tested and reference formulations, compared to the negative control (demineralized surface stored in PBS).
Figure 4Representative micrographs at different magnifications (2000 × , 5000 × , and 10,000 ×) of the dentine surfaces after treatment with test and reference formulations, compared to the negative control (demineralized surface stored in PBS). Open tubules can be clearly seen that were closed in a variable percentage depending on the tested formulation. In general, mousses provided better obliteration (increased layer homogeneity) of the tubules than the toothpastes.
Figure 5Representative micrographs of the same area (in this case belonging to RT), scanned at different times (1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 min) focusing the electron beam on the opening of tubules, thus heating the carbon-rich collagen structures underneath and disrupting the mineralized material obliterating the lumen. In this way, it was possible to measure the thickness of the deposited layer. The latter can be clearly seen as constituted by a homogeneous assembly of spherical nanoparticles. The absence of exposed HA prisms in this substratum did not allow for epitaxial growth; therefore, no HA nanocrystals could be identified independently from the tested formulations. Considering the treatment time that was allowed in this study (one week), it can be speculated that the tested formulations might need to incorporate a scaffold in order to be able to grow organized structures on the dentinal substrate.
Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) compositional analysis of enamel surface layer (≈1 μm) brushed with the tested formulations.
| wt% | BT | RT | CT (reference) | BM | RM | MM | Negative control (PBS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | 6.23(1.13)b | 6.57(0.60)a,b | 6.88(0.95)a,b | 6.47(0.13)a,b | 6.77(1.44)a,b | 7.24(0.64)a | 7.52(0.78)a |
| O | 40.08(0.42)a,b | 39.76(0.67)a,b | 39.37(1,24)b | 41.50(0.51)a | 41.48(0.34)a | 39.22(1.10)b | 40,27(0,92)a |
| P | 14.7(0.39)a | 14.8(0.53)a | 14.81(0.59)a | 13.41(0.84)b | 13.70(0.44)b | 14.54(0.19)a | 14.56(0.38)a |
| Ca | 37.09(0.67)a | 36.58(0.58)a,b | 36.50(1.14)a,b | 35.40(1.52)b | 35.59(0.57)b | 36.50(0.70)a,b | 35.92(0.92)b |
| F | 0.19(0.06)b | 0.05(0.04)d | 0.11(0.05)c | 0.28(0.07)a | 0.01(0.01)d | 0.20(0.03)b | 0.03(0.02)d |
| Mg | 0.27(0.08)a | 0.21(0.05)b | 0.22(0.06)a,b | 0.17(0.04)b | 0.20(0.01)a,b | 0.23(0.01)a,b | 0.21(0.02)a,b |
| Zn | 0.07(0.09)c | 0.23(0.06)a | 0.10(0.07)b,c | 0.04(0.06)c | 0.22(0.02)a,b | 0.03(0.06)c | 0.09(0.08)c |
| Sr | 0.34(0.04)a | 0.10(0.13)c | 0.23(0.04)b | 0.38(0.08)a | 0.23(0.04)b | 0.21(0.04)b | 0.22(0.10)b |
| Na | 0.48(0.17)a | 0.63(0.24)a | 0.64(0.23)a | 0.57(0.28)a | 0.56(0.03)a | 0.55(0.04)a | 0.60(0.06)a |
| Al | 0.01(0.01)b | 0.00(0.00)b | 0.01(0.01)b | 0.02(0.01)a,b | 0.00(0.00)b | 0.00(0.00)b | 0.03(0.03)a |
| Si | 0.30(0.12)c | 0.73(0.27)b | 0.73(0.28)b | 1.66(0.15)a | 1.08(0.38)b | 0.68(0.08)b | 0.21(0.05)c |
| S | 0.00(0.00)b | 0.09(0.10)a | 0.01(0.02)b | 0.00(0.00)b | 0.02(0.03)a,b | 0.07(0.08)a | 0.02(0.03)b |
| Cl | 0.18(0.06)b,c | 0.19(0.08)b,c | 0.22(0.07)a,b | 0.10(0.04)c | 0.15(0.05)b,c | 0.26(0.03)a | 0.26(0.06)a |
| K | 0.06(0.06)a | 0.05(0.07)a | 0.03(0.05)a | 0.02(0.01)a | 0.00(0.00)a | 0.01(0.02)a | 0.05(0.07)a |
| Ti | 0.00(0.00)b | 0.00(0.01)b | 0.14(0.03)a | 0.01(0.01)b | 0.01(0.01)b | 0.29(0.05)a | 0.00(0.01)b |
| Ca/P (mol) | 1.95(0.05)a,b | 1.91(0.06)b | 1.91(0.05)b | 2.05(0.22)a | 2.01(0.03)a,b | 1.94(0.02)a,b | 1.91(0.02)b |
Means ± 1 standard deviation were calculated from normalized wt% data. Different superscript letters indicate, for each element, significant differences between formulation treatments effect on the enamel surfaces (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 6Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) spectra of depth interaction at 15 kV electron accelerating voltage depending on the different elements. While carbon, oxygen, and fluoride signals originate from a very superficial layer (most of the signal comes from the first 600 nm), the information of all other elements comes from a much thicker layer where most information comes from the first 1200 nm. This distribution has to be kept in mind when analyzing the elemental compositions of the remineralized layers having a thickness of 200 to 300 nm (Fig. 5).
Figure 7Diagrams depicting specimen preparation. (A) horizontal sections of the tooth exposing enamel and dentin and (B) delimitation of control and treatment regions by notches made using the diamond disc. In all enamel and dentine specimens (n = 18 each), one of the 4 delimited regions was always kept as the negative control, leaving the other three regions randomly allocated to one of the six toothpastes or mousse treatments (9 regions per each treatment, 18 regions for the negative controls). The negative control regions were used to ensure homogeneous structures among specimens (enamel demineralization pattern, dentine tubules density).