- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Butler, Andrew"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Exploratory randomized clinical trial of an experimental gel-to-foam fluoride dentifrice formulation using an in situ caries model(2015) Barlow, Ashley; Butler, Andrew; Mason, Stephen; Zero, Domenick; Department of Cariology, Operative Dentistry, and Dental Public Health, IU School of DentistryOBJECTIVE: To evaluate the in situ caries performance and safety of two experimental fluoride dentifrice formulations (1450 ppm fluoride) with and without 2% isopentane as an excipient, in comparison to a positive control, currently marketed dentifrice (1450 ppm fluoride) and a negative control dentifrice (0 ppm fluoride). METHODS: This was a single-center, examiner-blind, randomized, controlled, four-treatment cross-over study. During each treatment period, the subject wore a modified mandibular partial denture fitted with two gauze-covered, partially demineralized human enamel specimens, and brushed at home for one timed minute, twice daily, for two weeks. At the end of each treatment period, the enamel specimens were removed from the dentures for analysis. During the week between treatment periods, subjects returned to their usual dental hygiene practices for four to five days, received a dental prophylaxis, and used a study-designated non-fluoride dentifrice for two to three days before starting the next treatment. Treatment effect on enamel specimen remineralization was assessed by surface microhardness (SMH). Enamel fluoride uptake was assessed using microdrill enamel biopsy. RESULTS: All fluoride-containing dentifrices demonstrated significant, superior SMH recovery and levels of fluoride uptake compared to the negative control dentifrice. No significant differences were observed for either efficacy variable between the experimental dentifrice formulations and the positive control dentifrice. No significant difference was observed between the 2% isopentane dentifrice and the 0% isopentane dentifrice for SMH recovery. CONCLUSION: The addition of 2% isopentane did not positively or negatively affect fluoride efficacy in this model.Item In situ anticaries efficacy of dentifrices with different formulations – A pooled analysis of results from three randomized clinical trials(Elsevier, 2018-10) Zero, Domenick T.; Lippert, Frank; Hara, Anderson T.; Creeth, Johnathan; Newby, Evelyn; Butler, Andrew; Constantin, Paul; Bosma, Mary Lynn; Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, School of DentistryObjectives Data generated from three similar in situ caries crossover studies presented the opportunity to conduct a pooled analysis to investigate how dentifrice formulations with different fluoride salts and combinations at concentrations of 1400–1450 ppm F, different abrasive systems and in some cases, carbomer (Carb), affect enamel caries lesion remineralization and fluoridation. Methods Subjects continuously wore modified partial dentures holding two gauze-covered partially-demineralized human enamel specimens for 14 days and brushed 2×/day with their assigned dentifrice: Study 1: sodium fluoride (NaF)/Carb/silica, NaF/silica, NaF + monofluorophosphate (MFP)/chalk; Study 2: NaF/Carb/silica, NaF + MFP/dical, amine fluoride (AmF)/silica; Study 3: NaF/Carb/silica, NaF + stannous fluoride (SnF2)/silica/hexametaphosphate (HMP). All studies included Placebo (0 ppm F) and/or dose-response controls (675 ppm F as NaF [675F-NaF]) ±Carb. Specimens were evaluated for percentage surface microhardness recovery (SMHR) and enamel fluoride uptake (EFU). Results All 1400–1450 ppm F dentifrices except NaF + SnF2/silica/HMP provided significantly greater lesion remineralization than Placebo (p < 0.0001): differences in SMHR ranged from 17.46% (NaF + MFP/dical) to 26.66% (AmF/silica). For EFU (back-transformed log EFU), all 1400–1450 ppm F dentifrices gave significant fluoride uptake compared to Placebo (p < 0.0001): increases in EFU ranged from 4.95 μg F/cm2 (NaF + SnF2/silica/HMP) to 16.32 μg F/cm2 (NaF/carb/silica). Dentifrices containing NaF or AmF as sole fluoride source provided the greatest remineralization and fluoridation; Carb addition did not alter fluoride efficacy; some excipients appeared to interfere with the cariostatic action of fluoride. Treatments were generally well-tolerated with ≤4 treatment-related adverse events per study. Conclusion Commercially available fluoride dentifrices varied greatly in their ability to remineralize and fluoridate early caries lesions. Clinical significance Fluoride dentifrices are the most impactful anticaries modality worldwide. While clinical caries trials have not consistently shown the superiority of one formulation over another, these findings using a sensitive in situ caries model indicated that dentifrices containing NaF or AmF as the sole fluoride source provided the greatest remineralization and fluoridation benefits.