Preventive Effect of Commercial Desensitizing Toothpastes on Bovine Enamel Erosion in vitro

This study evaluated in vitro commercial desensitizing toothpastes with respect to the prevention of erosion and explored the effect of their agents alone or in combination with fluoride. Bovine enamel blocks were randomly allocated to five groups of 20 and exposed to: Sensodyne ProNamel (1,425 ppm F as NaF, 5% KNO(3)), Sensodyne Original (no fluoride, 10% SrCl(2)), Colgate Sensitive (1,450 ppm F as sodium monofluorophosphate, 5% K citrate), Crest (fluoride-only toothpaste, 1,100 ppm F as NaF) and water (negative control). A second experiment was conducted with experimental dentifrices containing fluoride (NaF, 1,100 ppm F), 10% SrCl(2), 5% KNO(3) or 5% K citrate alone or the latter three combined with F. The samples were submitted to four cycles, alternating demineralization (cola, 10 min) and remineralization (artificial saliva, 1 h). Before and between cyclic de- and remineralization, blocks were treated with slurries of the respective toothpastes or water (1 min). Erosive tissue loss was analyzed by profilometry. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn`s tests (p < 0.05). The mean erosion depth (+/- SE, mu m) was significantly less for Colgate Sensitive (0.04 +/- 0.00), Sensodyne Original (0.06 +/- 0.01) and Crest (0.07 +/- 0.01) than for Sensodyne ProNamel (2.36 +/- 0.25) or water (2.92 +/- 0.24), which did not significantly differ from each other. Both F and the desensitizing agents alone reduced erosion, but no additive effect was found. In addition, the combination of F and KNO(3) did not reduce erosion. These in vitro results suggest that the presence of fluoride or desensitizing substances in toothpastes, alone or in combination, can reduce erosion of enamel, but this is not valid for all the formulations. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

Dietary Fluoride Intake by Children Receiving Different Sources of Systemic Fluoride

There has been no comparison of fluoride (F) intake by pre-school children receiving more traditional sources of systemic F. The aim of this study was to estimate the dietary F intake by children receiving F from artificially fluoridated water (AFW-Brazil, 0.6-0.8 mg F/L), naturally fluoridated water (NFW-Brazil, 0.6-0.9 mg F/L), fluoridated salt (FS-Peru, 180-200 mg F/Kg), and fluoridated milk (FM-Peru, 0.25 mg F). Children (n = 21-26) aged 4-6 yrs old participated in each community. A non-fluoridated community (NoF) was evaluated as the control population. Dietary F intake was monitored by the ""duplicate plate"" method, with different constituents (water, other beverages, and solids). F was analyzed with an ion-selective electrode. Data were tested by Kruskall-Wallis and Dunn`s tests (p < 0.05). Mean (+/- SD) F intake (mg/Kg b.w./day) was 0.04 +/- 0.01(b), 0.06 +/- 0.02(a,b), 0.05 +/- 0.02(a,b), 0.06 +/- 0.01(a), and 0.01 +/- 0.00(c) for AFW/NFW/FS/FM/NoF, respectively. The main dietary contributors for AFW/NFW and FS/FM/NoF were water and solids, respectively. The results indicate that the dietary F intake must be considered before a systemic method of fluoridation is implemented.