- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "dentifrice"
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Anticaries Potential of a Sodium Monofluorophosphate Dentifrice Containing Calcium Sodium Phosphosilicate: Exploratory in situ Randomized Trial(Karger, 2017-03) Parkinson, C. R.; Siddiqi, M.; Mason, S.; Lippert, Frank; Hara, Anderson T.; Zero, Domenick T.; Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, School of DentistryCalcium sodium phosphosilicate (CSPS) is a bioactive glass material that alleviates dentin hypersensitivity and is postulated to confer remineralization of caries lesions. This single-centre, randomized, single (investigator)-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, in situ study explored whether the addition of 5% CSPS to a nonaqueous fluoride (F) such as sodium monofluorophosphate (SMFP)-containing dentifrice affects its cariostatic ability. Seventy-seven subjects wore 4 gauze-covered enamel specimens with preformed lesions (2 surface-softened and 2 subsurface) placed buccally on their mandibular bilateral dentures for up to 4 weeks. Subjects brushed twice daily with 1 of the 5 study dentifrices: 927 ppm F/5% CSPS, 927 ppm F/0% CSPS, 250 ppm F/0% CSPS, 0 ppm F/5% CSPS, or 0 ppm F/0% CSPS. Specimens were retrieved after either 21 (surface-softened lesions; analyzed by Knoop surface microhardness [SMH]) or 28 days (subsurface lesions; analyzed by transverse microradiography). The enamel fluoride uptake was determined for all specimens using a microbiopsy technique. The concentrations of fluoride and calcium in gauze-retrieved plaque were also evaluated. Higher dentifrice fluoride concentrations led to greater remineralization and fluoridation of both lesion types and increased plaque fluoride concentrations. CSPS did not improve the cariostatic properties of SMFP; there were no statistically significant differences between 927 ppm F/5% CSPS and 927 ppm F/0% CSPS in percent SMH recovery (p = 0.6788), change in integrated mineral loss (p = 0.5908), or lesion depth (p = 0.6622). Likewise, 0 ppm F/5% CSPS did not provide any benefits in comparison to 0 ppm F/0% CSPS. In conclusion, CSPS does not negatively impact nor does it improve the ability of an SMFP dentifrice to affect remineralization of caries lesions.Item Effect of fluoride and abrasives on artificial enamel caries lesions(2012) Nassar, Hani M., 1979-; Hara, Anderson T.; González-Cabezas, Carlos, 1966-; Lippert, Frank; Fontana, Margherita Ruth, 1966-; Chu, Tien-Min GabrielHypothesis: The interaction between the abrasive level and fluoride concentration of dentifrice slurries modulates the surface loss (SL) and remineralization of incipient enamel caries (IEC). Methods: Three types of IEC were created and six experimental slurries with different combinations of fluoride content and abrasive level were tested. In experiment 1, the three IEC were subjected to brushing (with experimental slurries) and remineralization cycles for 5 days. Fluoride concentrations (0 and 275 ppm as NaF) and abrasive levels (Low and High) were tested. SL was determined by optical profilometry at baseline and after 1, 3, and 5 days. In experiment 2, changes in IEC mineral content (Δ(ΔZ)C) and depth (ΔLC) were investigated at baseline and after the 5-day cycling with transverse microradiography. In experiments 3 and 4, SL of MeC and CMC lesions were further studied, respectively; testing not only fluoride concentration (275 and 1250 ppm as NaF) and abrasivity (low and high) of the slurry, but also the brushing frequency (1x, 2x, and 3x/day). Brushing-remineralization cycles were performed for 7 days. Statistical analyses were performed at 5% significance level. Results: Experiment 1: overall, brushing with the high-abrasive slurry caused more SL than with the low-abrasive. For CMC and MeC lesions, 0 ppm F had more SL than 275 ppm F only after day 3. Fluoride had no effect on the SL of HEC lesions. Experiment 2: fluoride and abrasives did not have a significant effect on IEC. HEC had significantly lower Δ(ΔZ)C than CMC and MeC, with CMC and MeC not differing from each other. Lesion type had no effect on ΔLC. Experiment 3: brushing CMC lesions 3x/day with 1250 ppm F increased SL compared to 1x/day, after 5 and 7 days. Study 4: brushing MeC lesions with high abrasive slurry containing 1250 ppm F increased SL after 5 and 7 days. Conclusions: The IEC tested showed different SL and remineralization behaviors. The fluoride content and abrasive level of the toothpaste showed to be relevant modulating the SL of enamel caries lesions as well as their remineralization behavior.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 Fluoride Dentifrice Overcomes the Lower Resistance of Fluorotic Enamel to Demineralization(Karger, 2019) Almeida, L. F.; Marín, L. M.; Martínez-Mier, E. A.; Cury, J. A.; Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, School of DentistryWe evaluated if the low resistance of fluorotic enamel to demineralization could be overcome by fluoride dentifrice (FD) treatment. Paired enamel slabs of sound and fluorotic enamel (n = 20/group) from human teeth presenting Thylstrup and Fejerskov index (TF) scores from 0 to 4 were obtained. Half of the anatomic surface of the enamel slabs was isolated and used as a control (baseline) regarding enamel mineralization and fluoride concentration. The slabs were submitted to a pH-cycling model simulating a high cariogenic challenge, and 2×/day they were treated with placebo dentifrice (PD) or FD (1,100 µg F/g, as NaF). After 10 days, the slabs were cut into two halves. Enamel demineralization was evaluated by cross-sectional microhardness in one half, and the fluoride formed (FF) concentration was determined in the other half. For statistical analysis, the data on net demineralization area (ΔΔS) and FF (µg F/g) were grouped into TF0, TF1–2, and TF3–4, and analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test (α = 5%). The factors studied were TF (0, 1–2, and 3–4) and dentifrice treatment (PD or FD). The effect of the factors was statistically significant for ΔΔS and FF (p < 0.05). In the PD group, the following pattern for ΔΔS was observed: TF3–4 > TF1–2 > TF0 (p < 0.05); however, the groups did not differ (p > 0.05) when FD was used. Regarding FF, the groups treated with PD did not differ (p > 0.05), but the greatest (p < 0.05) FF concentration was found in group TF3–4 treated with FD. These findings suggest that the higher susceptibility of fluorotic enamel to demineralization lesions is decreased by the use of FD.Item A randomised clinical evaluation of a fluoride mouthrinse and dentifrice in an in situ caries model(Elsevier, 2018) Parkinson, Charles R.; Hara, Anderson T.; Nehme, Marc; Lippert, Frank; Zero, Domenick T.; Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, School of DentistryObjectives Fluoride mouthrinses provide advantages for fluoride delivery by maintaining elevated intra-oral fluoride concentrations following fluoride dentifrice use. This in situ caries study investigated potential anti-caries efficacy of a 220 ppm fluoride mouthrinse. Methods This was an analyst-blinded, four-treatment, randomised, crossover study using partially demineralised, gauze-wrapped, human enamel samples mounted in a mandibular partial denture. Participants brushed twice daily for 14 days with either a 1150 ppm fluoride or a fluoride-free placebo dentifrice and either rinsed once daily with the 220 ppm fluoride mouthrinse or not. Following each treatment period, percent surface microhardness recovery (%SMHR) and enamel fluoride uptake (EFU) were assessed. Results Fifty three participants completed the study. Compared with the placebo dentifrice/no rinse treatment, the fluoride-containing regimens demonstrated greater enamel remineralisation (%SMHR) and fluoridation (EFU): fluoride dentifrice/fluoride rinse (%SMHR difference: 21.55 [95% CI: 15.78,27.32]; EFU difference 8.35 [7.21,9.29]); fluoride dentifrice/no rinse: 19.48 [13.81,25.15]; 6.47 [5.35,7.60]; placebo dentifrice/fluoride rinse: 16.76 [11.06,22.45]; 5.87 [4.72,7.00] (all P < .0001). There were no significant differences in%SMHR between fluoride regimens. The fluoride dentifrice/fluoride rinse regimen was associated with higher EFU than the fluoride dentifrice/no rinse (1.88 [0.75,3.01], P = .0013) and placebo dentifrice/fluoride rinse regimens (2.48 [1.34,3.62], P < .0001). Treatments were generally well-tolerated. Conclusions The in situ caries model demonstrated that the fluoride mouthrinse is effective in promoting enamel caries lesion remineralisation and fluoridation whether used following a fluoride or non-fluoride dentifrice. Additive (potential) anti-caries benefits of a fluoride rinse after a fluoride dentifrice were confined to enhancements in lesion fluoridation (EFU). Clinical significance In conjunction with a fluoride dentifrice, fluoride mouthrinses enhance enamel fluoridation, which may be useful in caries prevention.Item Randomised study of the effects of fluoride and time on in situ remineralisation of acid-softened enamel(Springer, 2019-04) Nehme, M.; Parkinson, C. R.; Zero, D. T.; Hara, A. T.; Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, School of DentistryObjectives This single-centre, randomised, crossover study used a short-term in situ dental erosion remineralisation model to explore the remineralisation of acid-softened enamel in the 4-h period immediately following brushing with an anti-erosion, dentin hypersensitivity test dentifrice containing 1150 ppm fluoride (as sodium fluoride [NaF]) or a placebo dentifrice with no fluoride. Materials and methods Fifty participants wearing a palatal appliance holding surface-softened bovine enamel specimens brushed their natural teeth with their assigned dentifrice. Specimens were removed at 5-, 10-, 15-, 30-, 60-, 120- and 240-min post brushing. Enamel remineralisation effect was evaluated at each timepoint by percent surface microhardness recovery (%SMHR) and enamel fluoride uptake (EFU). After a second in vitro erosive challenge, the percent relative erosion resistance (%RER) was calculated. Results Statistically significant differences in %SMHR were observed for the test dentifrice compared with the placebo dentifrice from the 60-min timepoint onwards (all p < 0.02; mean difference of 8.66 [95% CI 3.46, 13.87] at 60 min). At each specimen removal time, %RER and EFU were statistically significantly higher for the test dentifrice compared with the placebo dentifrice (p < 0.0001 for all). No treatment-related or serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions The NaF-containing anti-erosion, dentin hypersensitivity dentifrice improved remineralisation of acid-softened enamel starting at 60 min of intra-oral exposure. It also improved enamel erosion resistance and fluoride uptake as early as 5 min after exposure to fluoridated dentifrice slurry.