Preventing erosion with novel agents

Objectives: This in vitro study aimed to investigate the protective effect of four commercial novel agents against erosion. Methods: Ninety human molars were distributed into 9 groups, and after incubation in human saliva for 2 h, a pellicle was formed. Subsequently, the specimens were submitted to demineralization (orange juice, pH 3.6, 3 min) and remineralization (paste slurry containing one of the tested novel agents, 3 min) cycles, two times per day, for 4 days. The tested agents were: (1) DenShield Tooth; active ingredient: 7.5% W/W NovaMin® (calcium sodium phosphosilicate); (2) Nanosensitive hca; active ingredient: 7.5% W/W NovaMin®; (3) GC Tooth Mousse; active ingredient: 10% Recaldent™ (CPP-ACP); (4) GC MI Paste Plus; active ingredients: 10% Recaldent™, 900 ppm fluoride. Two experimental procedures were performed: in procedure 1, the tested agents were applied prior to the erosive attack, and in procedure 2 after the erosive attack. A control group receiving no prophylactic treatment was included. Surface nanohardness (SNH) of enamel specimens was measured after pellicle formation and after completion of daily cyclic treatment. Results: SNH significantly decreased at the end of the experiment for all groups (p < 0.05). In both procedures, there was no statistically significant difference between the control group and those treated with paste slurries (p > 0.05). In addition, the changes in SNH (ΔSNH = SNHbaseline − SNHfinal) did not show statistically significant difference between both procedures (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Tooth erosion cannot be prevented or repaired by these novel agents, regardless of fluoride content.

Conventional and anti-erosion fluoride toothpastes: effect on enamel erosion and erosion-abrasion

New toothpastes with anti-erosion claims are marketed, but little is known about their effectiveness. This study investigates these products in comparison with various conventional NaF toothpastes and tin-containing products with respect to their erosion protection/abrasion prevention properties. In experiment 1, samples were demineralised (10 days, 6 × 2 min/day; citric acid, pH 2.4), exposed to toothpaste slurries (2 × 2 min/day) and intermittently stored in a mineral salt solution. In experiment 2, samples were additionally brushed for 15 s during the slurry immersion time. Study products were 8 conventional NaF toothpastes (1,400-1,490 ppm F), 4 formulations with anti-erosion claims (2 F toothpastes: NaF + KNO(3) and NaF + hydroxyapatite; and 2 F-free toothpastes: zinc-carbonate-hydroxyapatite, and chitosan) and 2 Sn-containing products (toothpaste: 3,436 ppm Sn, 1,450 ppm F as SnF(2)/NaF; gel: 970 ppm F, 3,030 ppm Sn as SnF(2)). A mouth rinse (500 ppm F as AmF/NaF, 800 ppm Sn as SnCl(2)) was the positive control. Tissue loss was quantified profilometrically. In experiment 1, most NaF toothpastes and 1 F-free formulation reduced tissue loss significantly (between 19 and 42%); the Sn-containing formulations were the most effective (toothpaste and gel 55 and 78% reduction, respectively). In experiment 2, only 4 NaF toothpastes revealed significant effects compared to the F-free control (reduction between 29 and 37%); the F-free special preparations and the Sn toothpaste had no significant effect. The Sn gel (reduction 75%) revealed the best result. Conventional NaF toothpastes reduced the erosive tissue loss, but had limited efficacy regarding the prevention of brushing abrasion. The special formulations were not superior, or were even less effective.

Impact of different toothpastes on the prevention of erosion

The aim of the present study was to test the impact of different toothpastes on the prevention of erosion. Enamel demineralization and remineralization were monitored using surface microhardness (SMH) measurements. Human enamel specimens were treated following two different procedures: (1) incubation in toothpaste slurry followed by acid softening and artificial saliva exposure; (2) acid softening followed by incubation in toothpaste slurry and artificial saliva exposure. For the control procedure, toothpaste treatment was excluded. The following toothpastes were tested: Zendium, Sensodyne Proschmelz (Pronamel), Prodent Rocket Power, Meridol and Signal active. Normalized SMH values compared to the baseline (= 1.00) after 1-hour artificial saliva exposure for procedure 1 (respectively for procedure 2) were as follows (mean: 95% CI): Sensodyne Proschmelz 0.97: 0.93, 1.00 (0.92: 0.90, 0.94), Zendium 0.97: 0.94, 1.00 (0.89: 0.83, 0.95), Meridol 0.97: 0.94, 1.00 (0.94: 0.92, 0.96), Signal active 0.94: 0.91, 0.97 (0.95: 0.91, 0.99), Prodent Rocket Power 0.92: 0.90, 0.94 (0.93: 0.89, 0.97) and control 0.91: 0.88, 0.94. Further exposure to artificial saliva for up to 4 h showed no significant improvement of SMH. Regression analyses revealed a significant impact of the applied procedure. Incubation in toothpaste slurries before the acid challenge seems to be favorable to prevent erosion. None of the tested toothpastes showed statistically significant better protection than another against an erosive attack.

Randomised in situ study on the efficacy of a tin/chitosan toothpaste on erosive-abrasive enamel loss

Tin is a notable anti-erosive agent, and the biopolymer chitosan has also shown demineralisation-inhibiting properties. Therefore, the anti-erosive/anti-abrasive efficacy of the combination of both compounds was tested under in situ conditions. Twenty-seven volunteers were included in a randomised, double-blind, three-cell crossover in situ trial. Enamel specimens were recessed on the buccal aspects of mandibular appliances, extraorally demineralised (6 × 2 min/day) and intraorally treated with toothpaste slurries (2 × 2 min/day). Within the slurry treatment time, one-half of the specimens received additional intraoral brushing (5 s, 2.5 N). The tested toothpastes included a placebo toothpaste, an experimental NaF toothpaste (1,400 ppm F(-)) and an experimental F/Sn/chitosan toothpaste (1,400 ppm F(-), 3,500 ppm Sn(2+), 0.5% chitosan). The percentage reduction of tissue loss (slurry exposure/slurry exposure + brushing) compared to placebo was 19.0 ± 47.3/21.3 ± 22.4 after use of NaF and 52.5 ± 30.9/50.2 ± 34.3 after use of F/Sn/chitosan. F/Sn/chitosan was significantly more effective than NaF (p ≤ 0.001) and showed good efficacy against erosive and erosive-abrasive tissue loss. This study suggests that the F/Sn/chitosan toothpaste could provide good protection for patients who frequently consume acidic foodstuffs.