IADR Abstract Archives
The Effect of Dentifrice Formulation on Fluoride Uptake and Remineralisation
Objectives: To assess the ability of a new dentifrice (Pronamel Intensive Enamel Repair), vs leading US marketed dentifrices in their ability to prevent and repair artificial erosive lesions. Three US marketed dentifrices i.e. Pronamel Intensive Enamel Repair (PIER), Crest ProHealth Clean Mint (CPCM) and Colgate Enamel Health Sensitivity Relief (CEHSR) have been compared for enamel surface roughening / bulk tissue loss following brushing (using White Light Interferometry – WLI), fluoride and calcium uptake (using Dynamic Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry – DSIMS).
Methods: Polished human tooth enamel specimens were divided into four treatment groups (n=5) i.e. PIER, CPCM, CEHSR and a fluoride-free control dentifrice. Specimens were immersed in dentifrice slurry (1:3 wt.% in artificial saliva, 2min.) followed by washing (deionised water, 1min.). For the WLI study, an artificial erosive challenge (1% citric acid, 5min.) was performed after the slurry/washing cycle. For the DSIMS experiment, the erosive challenge was performed prior to dentifrice slurry treatment. Additionally, the artificial saliva for the DSIMS calcium uptake study contained 44Calcium chloride with ~97% 44Calcium content. WLI measurements were performed using an ADE PhaseShift MicroXAM white light interferometer. DSIMS analysis was carried out using a Cameca ims 6f instrument.
Results: Surface roughness (Sa) values from tooth enamel treated with PIER were significantly lower than for CPCM and CEHSR. Enamel tissue loss data mirrored this trend with PIER showing ~ ten-fold lower tissue loss than either CPCM or CEHSR. DSIMS analysis showed PIER having the highest fluoride uptake i.e. ~5x higher than CEHSR and ~38x higher c.f. CPCM. For 44Ca uptake, PIER treatment lead to an approximately 2.7x higher level than CEHSR and ~6x higher c.f. CPCM.
Conclusions: This in vitro study has shown significant benefits from treatment of human enamel with Pronamel Intensive Enamel Repair for protection against acid erosion and remineralisation.
Methods: Polished human tooth enamel specimens were divided into four treatment groups (n=5) i.e. PIER, CPCM, CEHSR and a fluoride-free control dentifrice. Specimens were immersed in dentifrice slurry (1:3 wt.% in artificial saliva, 2min.) followed by washing (deionised water, 1min.). For the WLI study, an artificial erosive challenge (1% citric acid, 5min.) was performed after the slurry/washing cycle. For the DSIMS experiment, the erosive challenge was performed prior to dentifrice slurry treatment. Additionally, the artificial saliva for the DSIMS calcium uptake study contained 44Calcium chloride with ~97% 44Calcium content. WLI measurements were performed using an ADE PhaseShift MicroXAM white light interferometer. DSIMS analysis was carried out using a Cameca ims 6f instrument.
Results: Surface roughness (Sa) values from tooth enamel treated with PIER were significantly lower than for CPCM and CEHSR. Enamel tissue loss data mirrored this trend with PIER showing ~ ten-fold lower tissue loss than either CPCM or CEHSR. DSIMS analysis showed PIER having the highest fluoride uptake i.e. ~5x higher than CEHSR and ~38x higher c.f. CPCM. For 44Ca uptake, PIER treatment lead to an approximately 2.7x higher level than CEHSR and ~6x higher c.f. CPCM.
Conclusions: This in vitro study has shown significant benefits from treatment of human enamel with Pronamel Intensive Enamel Repair for protection against acid erosion and remineralisation.
