IADR Abstract Archives
Comparing NaF and Nicomethanol Hydrofluoride Regarding Enamel Fluoride Uptake
Objectives: Aim of this in vitro study was to compare the enamel fluoride uptake (EFU) of toothpastes and solutions containing sodium fluoride (NaF) and the organic fluoride nicomethanol hydrofluoride (NHF, Fluorinol®).
Methods: Slightly demineralized (15min, 1% citric acid, pH 3.8) human enamel samples were fluoridated in a cyclic procedure including treatment with test products and storing in artificial saliva. Product treatment was conducted by storing the samples in solutions (1min) and toothpaste slurries (1:2 w/w toothpaste:deionized water) of NaF and NHF, respectively (1450ppm F- for all products). The EFU was measured after 1 and 20 treatment cycles by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (TOF-SIMS; M6, Iontof). Depth profiling to 4µm was performed by measuring and sputtering in an alternating mode.
Statistical evaluation was conducted by ANOVA and t-tests (p<0.05).
Results: For all product groups, a decrease of F- ion intensities with increasing measurement depth was observed.
20 treatments: NHF solution led to significantly (p<10-6) higher EFU (F- ion intensities between 249335±32039 and 14472±5200 counts) than all other test groups over the entire depth. NaF solution (2204±380 – 183±25 counts), NaF toothpaste (1092±168 – 113±20 counts) and NHF toothpaste (1881±314 – 308±36 counts) were in a similar range. NHF toothpaste showed significantly (p<0.007) higher intensities than NaF toothpaste (over entire depth) and NaF solution (from 2000 nm, p=1.7*10-5).
1 treatment: NHF solution was significantly (p<1.4*10-6) superior to the other test groups, which were not significantly different from each other here.
Solutions showed higher intensities than the respective toothpastes with considerably greater differences for NHF than for NaF products.
Conclusions: NHF performs at least similarly to NaF regarding EFU. Observed significantly higher EFU for NHF products suggests that more fluoride from this source can incorporate into deeper enamel regions. Multiple treatment procedure shows better discriminability between test products and should be used generally to compare the efficacy of different products.
The study was sponsored by Pierre Fabre.
Methods: Slightly demineralized (15min, 1% citric acid, pH 3.8) human enamel samples were fluoridated in a cyclic procedure including treatment with test products and storing in artificial saliva. Product treatment was conducted by storing the samples in solutions (1min) and toothpaste slurries (1:2 w/w toothpaste:deionized water) of NaF and NHF, respectively (1450ppm F- for all products). The EFU was measured after 1 and 20 treatment cycles by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (TOF-SIMS; M6, Iontof). Depth profiling to 4µm was performed by measuring and sputtering in an alternating mode.
Statistical evaluation was conducted by ANOVA and t-tests (p<0.05).
Results: For all product groups, a decrease of F- ion intensities with increasing measurement depth was observed.
20 treatments: NHF solution led to significantly (p<10-6) higher EFU (F- ion intensities between 249335±32039 and 14472±5200 counts) than all other test groups over the entire depth. NaF solution (2204±380 – 183±25 counts), NaF toothpaste (1092±168 – 113±20 counts) and NHF toothpaste (1881±314 – 308±36 counts) were in a similar range. NHF toothpaste showed significantly (p<0.007) higher intensities than NaF toothpaste (over entire depth) and NaF solution (from 2000 nm, p=1.7*10-5).
1 treatment: NHF solution was significantly (p<1.4*10-6) superior to the other test groups, which were not significantly different from each other here.
Solutions showed higher intensities than the respective toothpastes with considerably greater differences for NHF than for NaF products.
Conclusions: NHF performs at least similarly to NaF regarding EFU. Observed significantly higher EFU for NHF products suggests that more fluoride from this source can incorporate into deeper enamel regions. Multiple treatment procedure shows better discriminability between test products and should be used generally to compare the efficacy of different products.
The study was sponsored by Pierre Fabre.