IADR Abstract Archives
Novel Abrasive System to Deliver Tooth Gloss
Objectives: The objective of this in-vitro study was to optimize a toothpaste abrasive system for maximum gloss efficacy.
Methods: Four test toothpastes were prepared in which the total amount of abrasive material remained constant but the ratio of high cleaning silica to calcium pyrophosphate varied: All silica (A), 3.5:1 silica:calpyro (B), 1.2:1 silica:calpyro (C), 0.5:1 silica:calpyro (D). These samples were tested for polishing efficacy in a screening model as follows. 12 unstained bovine teeth mounted in acrylic were acid etched, polished, and then acid etched again to bring teeth to a uniform baseline. Baseline values were measured using the Novo-Curve (60°) gloss meter. The gloss was measured at four 90° rotations of the teeth and the average reported. The teeth were mounted and then brushed for 1600 strokes at settings of 120 strokes/min and 250 grams on a brushing machine using 6g of toothpaste and 3g of water. After brushing, the teeth were rinsed, patted dry, and gloss values were measured. The increase in gloss relative to the baseline value was reported. The teeth were next acid etched, polished, and acid etched to return teeth to uniform baseline gloss values and then brushed with the next toothpaste product. Following the screening method the lead was evaluated in the industry standard Enamel Polishing Potential (EPP) test vs. the silica control.
Results: In the screening model, Δgloss was 15.9+8.8 A, 19.1+5.9 B, 22.6+9.9 C, and 12.4+5.4 D. In the EPP test, the Δgloss was 20.3+2.1 for A and 26.3+1.7 for C. The EPP results for the two products are statistically significantly different.
Conclusions: A combination of silica and calcium pyrophosphate provides significantly greater gloss than silica alone. The ratio of high cleaning silica to calcium pyrophosphate is important with a 1.2:1 ratio of silica to calcium pyrophosphate providing the optimal gloss.
Methods: Four test toothpastes were prepared in which the total amount of abrasive material remained constant but the ratio of high cleaning silica to calcium pyrophosphate varied: All silica (A), 3.5:1 silica:calpyro (B), 1.2:1 silica:calpyro (C), 0.5:1 silica:calpyro (D). These samples were tested for polishing efficacy in a screening model as follows. 12 unstained bovine teeth mounted in acrylic were acid etched, polished, and then acid etched again to bring teeth to a uniform baseline. Baseline values were measured using the Novo-Curve (60°) gloss meter. The gloss was measured at four 90° rotations of the teeth and the average reported. The teeth were mounted and then brushed for 1600 strokes at settings of 120 strokes/min and 250 grams on a brushing machine using 6g of toothpaste and 3g of water. After brushing, the teeth were rinsed, patted dry, and gloss values were measured. The increase in gloss relative to the baseline value was reported. The teeth were next acid etched, polished, and acid etched to return teeth to uniform baseline gloss values and then brushed with the next toothpaste product. Following the screening method the lead was evaluated in the industry standard Enamel Polishing Potential (EPP) test vs. the silica control.
Results: In the screening model, Δgloss was 15.9+8.8 A, 19.1+5.9 B, 22.6+9.9 C, and 12.4+5.4 D. In the EPP test, the Δgloss was 20.3+2.1 for A and 26.3+1.7 for C. The EPP results for the two products are statistically significantly different.
Conclusions: A combination of silica and calcium pyrophosphate provides significantly greater gloss than silica alone. The ratio of high cleaning silica to calcium pyrophosphate is important with a 1.2:1 ratio of silica to calcium pyrophosphate providing the optimal gloss.