No abstract

No abstract

Objectives: To compare the erosion protection efficacy of a stabilised, stannous fluoride (SnF 2 ) dentifrice versus a sodium fluoride (NaF) dentifrice using a modified in situ clinical model. Methods: This study, a randomised parallel group in situ design with in vivo product use and ex vivo acid challenge, compared: A, a dentifrice containing 1,450 ppm F as NaF; B, a dentifrice containing 1,450 ppm F (1,100 ppm F as SnF 2 + 350 ppm F as NaF); and T, tap water. Sample size was n = 4 per group (total of 12 subjects) and within each subject appliances were placed on each side of the mouth (left and right). Enamel specimens were placed in different positions of the mouth (front, mid-front, mid-rear, rear) in each appliance (total = 8 specimens per subject). Product treatment was twice per day (lingual brushing for 30 seconds followed by swishing for 90 seconds with the resultant product/saliva slurry) in vivo for 15 days, and ex vivo acid treatment (0.02 M citric acid 5 minutes four times per day; total exposure time = 300 minutes). Data were analysed using a general linear repeated measures model with treatment, side and position as fixed effects. Within subjects, correlations were modelled assuming a different correlation and variance for treatment B relative to the other groups. Pairwise treatment differences were performed using a 5% two-sided significance level. Results: Enamel loss (in lm) was significantly lower (P < 0.005) for treatment B versus treatments A and T. Treatment B reduced enamel surface loss by 86.9% relative to treatment A. There was no statistical difference in mean enamel loss (P = 0.51) between treatments A and T. Enamel loss was not statistically different for side (left vs. right; P = 0.44) or position (front, mid-front, mid-rear, rear; P = 0.36). Conclusion: This modified in situ erosion model confirmed the enhanced erosion protection benefits of a stabilised SnF 2 dentifrice versus a conventional NaF dentifrice, validating the ability of the model to safely and effectively demonstrate differences in the erosion protection potential of oral care products.

Aim:To compare the plaque inhibition efficacy of a sodium fluoride/potassium nitrate (NaF/KNO 3 with 1450 ppm F) test dentifrice to a 0.454% stannous fluoride/sodium hexametaphosphate/sodium fluoride positive control dentifrice (SnF 2 /SHMP with 1450 ppm F). Methods and Materials:Twenty-five subjects were randomized to a two-period, two-treatment, double blind crossover sequence using NaF/KNO 3 (Sensodyne ® ProNamel™ dentifrice) and SnF 2 /SHMP (blend-a-med ® * EXPERT GUMS PROTECTION dentifrice). Each treatment was conducted with a standard manual toothbrush (Oral-B ® P35 Indicator). Digital plaque image analysis (DPIA) was used on three consecutive days to evaluate:(a) overnight plaque formation (A.M. pre-brushing); (b) following 40 seconds of brushing with the test product (A.M. post-brushing); and (c) mid-afternoon (P.M.). Images were analysed using an objective computer algorithm to calculate the total area of visible plaque. A four-day washout period was instituted for the crossover phase. Results:All 25 subjects completed the study. The SnF 2 /SHMP positive control dentifrice provided statistically significantly lower levels of plaque area coverage versus the NaF/KNO 3 test dentifrice at each timepoint. For the SnF 2 /SHMP dentifrice, plaque coverage was 23.0% lower (p<0.0001) at A.M. pre-brushing, 17.3% (p=0.0163) lower at A.M. post-brushing, and 22.6% (p= 0.0004) lower at the P.M. measure relative to the NaF/KNO 3 dentifrice. Abstract © Seer PublishingClinical Significance: Dentists recommending an effective home use dentifrice for patients experiencing dentinal hypersensitivity and/or dental erosion may previously have needed to compromise on other key benefits, such as plaque control. blend-a-med ® EXPERT GUMS PROTECTION is a dentifrice when integrated into an oral hygiene routine can provide a proven treatment for hypersensitivity, dental erosion, and a reduction in the regrowth of plaque.