International dental journal · 2014
Erosion protection comparison of stabilised SnF2 , mixed fluoride active and SMFP/arginine-containing dentifrices.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Eversole Sandra L, Saunders-Burkhardt Kymberly, Faller Robert V
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the relative erosion protection potential of marketed dentifrices formulated with either stabilised stannous fluoride (SnF2 ), sodium fluoride (NaF) and/or sodium monofluorophosphate (SMFP) using an established laboratory erosion cycling model.
METHODS: Sound enamel cores from extracted, human enamel were cleaned, ground and polished, soaked in pooled saliva (pellicle formation) and treated with a 1:3 slurry of dentifrice and saliva. Specimens were subjected to daily challenges with 1% citric acid, a potentially damaging acid found in common food and drinks. Marketed dentifrices compared were: (1) a stabilised stannous fluoride product formulated with 1,100 ppm F as SnF2 ; (2) a cavity protection product containing 1,100 ppm F as NaF; (3) a cavity protection product comprising a mixed active fluoride system with 1,000 ppm F as SMFP + 450 ppm F as NaF; and (4) a sensitivity product containing 1,450 ppm F as SMFP + 8% arginine bicarbonate.
RESULTS: Specimens from Group 1 demonstrated an average loss of 5.5 (±1.2) μm of tooth surface enamel; Groups 2, 3 and 4 lost an average of 18.3 (±0.9) μm, 16.0 (±2.0) μm and 17.1 (±1.1) μm, respectively, of tooth surface enamel. Group 1 provided a statistically significant difference in protection compared with the other products.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the marketed dentifrice formulated with stabilised SnF2 may provide enhanced protection of exposed tooth surfaces against dietary acid attack compared with the other products tested.
METHODS: Sound enamel cores from extracted, human enamel were cleaned, ground and polished, soaked in pooled saliva (pellicle formation) and treated with a 1:3 slurry of dentifrice and saliva. Specimens were subjected to daily challenges with 1% citric acid, a potentially damaging acid found in common food and drinks. Marketed dentifrices compared were: (1) a stabilised stannous fluoride product formulated with 1,100 ppm F as SnF2 ; (2) a cavity protection product containing 1,100 ppm F as NaF; (3) a cavity protection product comprising a mixed active fluoride system with 1,000 ppm F as SMFP + 450 ppm F as NaF; and (4) a sensitivity product containing 1,450 ppm F as SMFP + 8% arginine bicarbonate.
RESULTS: Specimens from Group 1 demonstrated an average loss of 5.5 (±1.2) μm of tooth surface enamel; Groups 2, 3 and 4 lost an average of 18.3 (±0.9) μm, 16.0 (±2.0) μm and 17.1 (±1.1) μm, respectively, of tooth surface enamel. Group 1 provided a statistically significant difference in protection compared with the other products.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the marketed dentifrice formulated with stabilised SnF2 may provide enhanced protection of exposed tooth surfaces against dietary acid attack compared with the other products tested.