Toothpaste factors related to dentine tubule occlusion and dentine protection against erosion and abrasion

Abstract

Objectives To investigate the effect of toothpastes on dentine surface loss and tubule occlusion, and the association of toothpasterelated factors to each of the outcomes. Materials and methods One hundred and sixty human dentine specimens were randomly distributed into 10 groups, according to different toothpastes. The specimens were submitted to artificial saliva (60 min), citric acid (3 min), and brushing abrasion (25 s; totalizing 2 min in toothpaste slurries). This was repeated five times and two outcome variables were analyzed: dentine surface loss (dSL; μm) and tubule occlusion by measurement of the total area of open tubules (Area-OT; μm 2 ). Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (α = 0.05); bivariate and multivariate regressions were used to model the association of the chemical (pH, concentration of F − , Ca 2+ , and PO 4 3− and presence of Sn 2+ ) and physical (% weight of solid particles, particle size, and wettability) factors of the toothpastes to both outcome variables. Results Toothpastes caused different degrees of dSL and did not differ in Area-OT. All chemical and physical factors, except the presence of Sn 2+ , were associated with dSL (p < 0.001). Area-OT was associated only with the presence of Sn 2+ (p = 0.033). Conclusion Greater dSL was associated with lower pH, lower concentration of F − , higher concentration of Ca 2+ and PO 4 3− , greater % weight of solid particles, smaller particle size, and lesser wettability, whereas tubule occlusion was associated with the presence of Sn 2+ . Clinical relevance Depending on their chemical and physical composition, toothpastes will cause different degrees of dentine tubule occlusion and dentine surface loss. This could, in turn, modulate dentine hypersensitivity.

Can toothpastes protect dentin against erosive tooth wear and dentin hypersensitivity at same time? An in vitro study

“…Although different results have been shown between surface loss and tubular occlusion promoted by dentifrices, the use of all tested desensitizing and anti-erosive products can be indicated and considered safe for the use by patients with risk of developing erosive wear, as the changes they caused in dentin were not greater than those observed in brushing with distilled water. Our results showed that dentifrices claiming to have an anti-erosive properties did not differ from those claiming to be desensitizers, which is in agreement with a previous investigation showing that desensitizing and anti-erosive promoted less dentin surface loss at different levels [11]. It could be suggested that the differences in formulations between these products are minimal, perhaps limited only to their active ingredients or uoride formulations.…”

“…Therefore, these toothpastes could be suitable for preventing ETW as well, based on our low SL results. A study showed that the pH of Elmex Erosion (EE) was 4.7 [21], a similar value to what we observed; however, this study's results showed that a higher pH was associated with a lower SL and that a lower pH was not associated with SL. This relationship between pH and SL could explain the non-signi cant correlation between these two variables in our results.…”

Dental hypersensitivity in individuals with cleft lip and palate: Origin and therapies

“…When it comes to fluoride varnish, the main factor is fluoride, whose protective effect against dental erosion is generally attributed to the formation of a layer similar to calcium fluoride. 20 Observed at higher concentrations, they were associated with a lower percentage of a successful response.…”

Effect of erosive media on microhardness and fracture toughness of CAD-CAM dental materials

“…A 100 ml of each of the media was used to fill glass bottles into which the bars were inserted and then covered with lids. The bottles were kept in an incubator (Grant OLS 200, Grant Instruments Cambridge Ltd., Shepreth, UK) at 37 °C for 24 h under constant slow shaking of 70 rpm [ 22 , 23 ]. This immersion time corresponds to 2.5 years of clinical exposure to these acids, which suggested that teeth are exposed to these acids three times/day with a duration of 30 s/exposure [ 24 , 25 ].…”