Erosion protection benefits of stabilized SnF 2 dentifrice versus an arginine-sodium monofluorophosphate dentifrice: results from in vitro and in situ clinical studies.

Autor: West NX; School of Oral and Dental Sciences, Bristol Dental School and Hospital, Lower Maudlin Street, Bristol, BS1 2LY, UK. N.X.West@bristol.ac.uk., He T; Procter and Gamble, Cincinnati, OH, USA., Macdonald EL; School of Oral and Dental Sciences, Bristol Dental School and Hospital, Lower Maudlin Street, Bristol, BS1 2LY, UK., Seong J; School of Oral and Dental Sciences, Bristol Dental School and Hospital, Lower Maudlin Street, Bristol, BS1 2LY, UK., Hellin N; School of Oral and Dental Sciences, Bristol Dental School and Hospital, Lower Maudlin Street, Bristol, BS1 2LY, UK., Barker ML; Procter and Gamble, Cincinnati, OH, USA., Eversole SL; Procter and Gamble, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Clinical oral investigations [Clin Oral Investig] 2017 Mar; Vol. 21 (2), pp. 533-540. Date of Electronic Publication: 2016 Aug 01.
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1905-1
Abstrakt: Objectives: The aim of these investigations was to assess the ability of two fluoride dentifrices to protect against the initiation and progression of dental erosion using a predictive in vitro erosion cycling model and a human in situ erosion prevention clinical trial for verification of effectiveness.
Materials and Methods: A stabilized stannous fluoride (SnF 2 ) dentifrice (0.454 % SnF 2  + 0.077 % sodium fluoride [NaF]; total F = 1450 ppm F) [dentifrice A] and a sodium monofluorophosphate [SMFP]/arginine dentifrice (1.1 % SMFP + 1.5 % arginine; total F = 1450 ppm F) [dentifrice B] were tested in a 5-day in vitro erosion cycling model and a 10-day randomized, controlled, double-blind, two-treatment, four-period crossover in situ clinical trial. In each study, human enamel specimens were exposed to repetitive product treatments using a standardized dilution of test products followed by erosive acid challenges in a systematic fashion.
Results: Both studies demonstrated statistically significant differences between the two products, with dentifrice A providing significantly better enamel protection in each study. In vitro, dentifrice A provided a 75.8 % benefit over dentifrice B (p < 0.05, ANOVA), while after 10 days in the in situ model, dentifrice A provided 93.9 % greater protection versus dentifrice B (p < 0.0001, general linear mixed model).
Conclusion: These results support the superiority of stabilized SnF 2 dentifrices for protecting human teeth against the initiation and progression of dental erosion.
Clinical Relevance: Stabilized SnF 2 dentifrices may provide more significant benefits to consumers than conventional fluoride dentifrices.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: