We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
A new model for demonstrating enamel protection benefits relative to acid challenge.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the applicability of a modified US FDA Caries Monograph test method for measuring the protective benefits of fluoride (F) against erosive, dietary acids.
METHODS: Acid-challenged teeth were treated in two studies with a dentifrice, rinsed, and then re-challenged in a series of tests using three dietary acids. Study 1 included dentifrices containing 1450 ppm F as sodium fluoride (NaF) + triclosan [A], 1450 ppm F (NaF) + potassium nitrate (KNO3) [B], 1000 ppm F as sodium monofluorophosphate (SMFP) [C], and 0 ppm F (placebo) [D]. Study 2 included dentifrices containing 1450 ppm F (NaF) [A]; and 0 ppm F (placebo) [B]. Acids were analyzed for phosphate removed during tooth challenges, with post-treatment results compared to baseline. Results were averaged and reported as a % protection value for each product, with higher values indicating greater protection.
RESULTS: Study 1: % protection for A = 16.4; B = 13.0; C = 7.1; and D = -5.2. Study 2: A = 15.2; B = -10.5, with A = B > C > D: Study 1; and A > B: Study 2. In each study, p < 0.05, ANOVA.
CONCLUSIONS: The model provides a viable tool for initially assessing the potential for fluoride-containing oral care products to protect teeth against erosive, dietary acids. This can then lead to further and more elaborate testing with reasonable expectations for outcomes.
METHODS: Acid-challenged teeth were treated in two studies with a dentifrice, rinsed, and then re-challenged in a series of tests using three dietary acids. Study 1 included dentifrices containing 1450 ppm F as sodium fluoride (NaF) + triclosan [A], 1450 ppm F (NaF) + potassium nitrate (KNO3) [B], 1000 ppm F as sodium monofluorophosphate (SMFP) [C], and 0 ppm F (placebo) [D]. Study 2 included dentifrices containing 1450 ppm F (NaF) [A]; and 0 ppm F (placebo) [B]. Acids were analyzed for phosphate removed during tooth challenges, with post-treatment results compared to baseline. Results were averaged and reported as a % protection value for each product, with higher values indicating greater protection.
RESULTS: Study 1: % protection for A = 16.4; B = 13.0; C = 7.1; and D = -5.2. Study 2: A = 15.2; B = -10.5, with A = B > C > D: Study 1; and A > B: Study 2. In each study, p < 0.05, ANOVA.
CONCLUSIONS: The model provides a viable tool for initially assessing the potential for fluoride-containing oral care products to protect teeth against erosive, dietary acids. This can then lead to further and more elaborate testing with reasonable expectations for outcomes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app