Erosion-Protective Benefits of an Enzymes and Proteins Containing Toothpaste

Objectives: To evaluate the enamel protective effects of a fluoride toothpaste (1450ppm fluoride as NaF) containing enzymes and proteins, versus a control fluoride toothpaste containing no enzymes and proteins against acid erosion, using an in vitro model.
Methods: Polished bovine enamel specimens (4mm x 4mm) were prepared and baseline surface microhardness (SMH) measurements were taken. Five Vickers indents per specimen were performed and an average hardness was calculated. The specimens were stratified and assigned into two groups (n=14/treatment group).
Specimens were pre-treated with saliva for 1hr and then 0.65% w/w citric acid solution (pH 2.6) for 90s. Specimens then underwent daily treatments of: toothpaste slurry (1:3 toothpaste:water) 3mins; 3 consecutive cycles of saliva 1h and 0.65% w/w citric acid solution (pH 2.6) 90s; a second treatment with toothpaste slurry, and incubated in artificial saliva overnight.
The toothpaste treatments were either a fluoride toothpaste (1450ppm fluoride as NaF) containing enzymes and proteins (Toothpaste A) or a control fluoride toothpaste (1450ppm fluoride as NaF) without enzymes and proteins (Toothpaste B).
SMH was measured after Days 1, 2 and 3 and the mean percentage change in SMH from baseline calculated.
Results: The mean (s.d.) percentage change and reduction in SMH from baseline for Toothpastes A and B after 1, 2 and 3 days are shown in the table below, indicating a greater enamel protective effect against acid erosion for Toothpaste A than Toothpaste B.




Treatments with different letters at each time point were significantly different (p<0.05, Students t-test).
Conclusions: A fluoride toothpaste containing enzymes and proteins gave significantly greater enamel protection against acid erosion than a fluoride control toothpaste.