IADR Abstract Archives
In-vitro Erosive Tooth Wear: Bioavailable SnF2 Provides Strong, RDA-Independent Protection
Objectives: A novel in-vitro Combined Erosion-Abrasion Wear method was developed to evaluate the ability of sodium fluoride (NaF) and stannous fluoride (SnF2) dentifrices to reduce enamel loss. This method correlates with clinical results in the assessment of erosive tooth wear (Zhao et al., in preparation). In this study, four NaF and two SnF2 marketed dentifrices with varying RDA values were evaluated to predict in-situ erosive tooth wear reduction.
Methods: Polished 4mm human enamel cores embedded in resin were randomized into groups of 8 by Vickers hardness and conditioned 72hr in Featherstone solution (Amer J Dentistry 24:289-294, 2011). The outer edges of each core were covered with polyester tape (untreated control areas) exposing a 1.5mm wide window of enamel for treatment. Cores were soaked (90sec), power brushed (5sec) in a slurry of either a) Crest Pro Health Advanced Deep Clean Mint (SnF2, RDA=205), b) Crest Pro Health Sensitive & Enamel Shield (SnF2, RDA=137), c) Colgate Enamel Health Multi-Protection & Sensitivity Relief (NaF, RDA=169), d) Arm & Hammer Complete Care (NaF, RDA=31), e) Sensodyne Pronamel Daily Protection (NaF, RDA=52), or f) Crest Cavity Protection (NaF, RDA=130, negative control), and then alternated between 1% Citric Acid (10min) and human saliva (45min) for two cycles. Dentifrice and acid/saliva cycles were repeated twice a day for 5 days (10 cycles) and analyzed by non-contact profilometry to determine wear depth.
Results: Enamel wear depth (µm): a (SnF2)=26.1, p<0.0001*; b (SnF2)=29.2, p=0.0071*; c (NaF)=32.5, p=0.9921; d (NaF)=32.9, p=1.0000; e (NaF)=33.6, p=0.9512; f (NaF)=32.9
*Dunnett's vs f (negative control), p < 0.05.
Conclusions: In this erosive tooth wear model, enamel loss was driven primarily by chemical erosion, and this was independently confirmed in a clinical study. Properly formulated bioavailable SnF2 dentifrices (a and b) delivered a significant reduction in erosive tooth wear.
Methods: Polished 4mm human enamel cores embedded in resin were randomized into groups of 8 by Vickers hardness and conditioned 72hr in Featherstone solution (Amer J Dentistry 24:289-294, 2011). The outer edges of each core were covered with polyester tape (untreated control areas) exposing a 1.5mm wide window of enamel for treatment. Cores were soaked (90sec), power brushed (5sec) in a slurry of either a) Crest Pro Health Advanced Deep Clean Mint (SnF2, RDA=205), b) Crest Pro Health Sensitive & Enamel Shield (SnF2, RDA=137), c) Colgate Enamel Health Multi-Protection & Sensitivity Relief (NaF, RDA=169), d) Arm & Hammer Complete Care (NaF, RDA=31), e) Sensodyne Pronamel Daily Protection (NaF, RDA=52), or f) Crest Cavity Protection (NaF, RDA=130, negative control), and then alternated between 1% Citric Acid (10min) and human saliva (45min) for two cycles. Dentifrice and acid/saliva cycles were repeated twice a day for 5 days (10 cycles) and analyzed by non-contact profilometry to determine wear depth.
Results: Enamel wear depth (µm): a (SnF2)=26.1, p<0.0001*; b (SnF2)=29.2, p=0.0071*; c (NaF)=32.5, p=0.9921; d (NaF)=32.9, p=1.0000; e (NaF)=33.6, p=0.9512; f (NaF)=32.9
*Dunnett's vs f (negative control), p < 0.05.
Conclusions: In this erosive tooth wear model, enamel loss was driven primarily by chemical erosion, and this was independently confirmed in a clinical study. Properly formulated bioavailable SnF2 dentifrices (a and b) delivered a significant reduction in erosive tooth wear.