Evaluation of mouthrinse and dentifrice regimens in an in situ erosion remineralisation model

Brenda Maggio, Rita G. Guibert, Stephen C. Mason, Ritu Karwal, Gareth D. Rees, Sue Kelly, Domenick Zero

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To compare the effectiveness of dentifrice/mouthrinse regimens in a clinical in situ erosion remineralisation model. Thirty-six subjects completed a randomised single-blind cross-over trial of five treatment regimens. R1: Dentifrice A [1450 ppm fluoride as the sodium salt (NaF), 50000 ppm potassium nitrate (KNO 3)] plus 450ppm fluoride (NaF) rinse; R2: Dentifrice A plus sterile water rinse; R3: Dentifrice B (fluoride-free Dentifrice A) plus sterile water rinse; R4: Dentifrice B plus 450 ppm fluoride (NaF) rinse; R5: Dentifrice C (1000 ppm fluorine as sodium monofluorophosphate, 450ppm fluoride as NaF) plus sterile water rinse. Subjects wore a palatal appliance holding eight pre-demineralised enamel blocks. A 60min interval separated in vivo use of dentifrice and rinse with the appliance retained in situ for 4h. Efficacy endpoints were percentage surface microhardness recovery (SMHR) following remineralisation, and percentage relative erosion resistance (RER) of recovered specimens following a subsequent in vitro erosive challenge. Statistical analyses included ANOVA and selected twin-tailed t-tests. Mean SMHR (±SE) was a42.14±1.39, b38.02±1.39, c30.57±1.39, b37.75±1.39 and c30.88±1.39 for regimens R1-R5 respectively (different superscripts denote statistically significant differences (pa-2.88±2.16, b-14.54±2.16, c-40.05±2.16, a-3.76±2.16 and d-29.48±2.16 for regimens R1-R5 respectively. R1 elicited statistically significantly greater SMHR versus all comparator regimens (p

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Dentistry
Volume38
Issue numberSUPPL. 3
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2010

Fingerprint

Dentifrices
Fluorides
fluorophosphate
Water
Sodium Fluoride
Fluorine
Dental Enamel
Cross-Over Studies
Analysis of Variance
Salts

Keywords

  • Dentifrice
  • Enamel
  • Erosion
  • Fluoride
  • In situ
  • Mouthrinse
  • pH cycling
  • Regimen
  • Surface microhardness

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Evaluation of mouthrinse and dentifrice regimens in an in situ erosion remineralisation model. / Maggio, Brenda; Guibert, Rita G.; Mason, Stephen C.; Karwal, Ritu; Rees, Gareth D.; Kelly, Sue; Zero, Domenick.

In: Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 38, No. SUPPL. 3, 11.2010.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Maggio, Brenda ; Guibert, Rita G. ; Mason, Stephen C. ; Karwal, Ritu ; Rees, Gareth D. ; Kelly, Sue ; Zero, Domenick. / Evaluation of mouthrinse and dentifrice regimens in an in situ erosion remineralisation model. In: Journal of Dentistry. 2010 ; Vol. 38, No. SUPPL. 3.
@article{438807440d45430b8917d5b0632e69a3,
title = "Evaluation of mouthrinse and dentifrice regimens in an in situ erosion remineralisation model",
abstract = "To compare the effectiveness of dentifrice/mouthrinse regimens in a clinical in situ erosion remineralisation model. Thirty-six subjects completed a randomised single-blind cross-over trial of five treatment regimens. R1: Dentifrice A [1450 ppm fluoride as the sodium salt (NaF), 50000 ppm potassium nitrate (KNO 3)] plus 450ppm fluoride (NaF) rinse; R2: Dentifrice A plus sterile water rinse; R3: Dentifrice B (fluoride-free Dentifrice A) plus sterile water rinse; R4: Dentifrice B plus 450 ppm fluoride (NaF) rinse; R5: Dentifrice C (1000 ppm fluorine as sodium monofluorophosphate, 450ppm fluoride as NaF) plus sterile water rinse. Subjects wore a palatal appliance holding eight pre-demineralised enamel blocks. A 60min interval separated in vivo use of dentifrice and rinse with the appliance retained in situ for 4h. Efficacy endpoints were percentage surface microhardness recovery (SMHR) following remineralisation, and percentage relative erosion resistance (RER) of recovered specimens following a subsequent in vitro erosive challenge. Statistical analyses included ANOVA and selected twin-tailed t-tests. Mean SMHR (±SE) was a42.14±1.39, b38.02±1.39, c30.57±1.39, b37.75±1.39 and c30.88±1.39 for regimens R1-R5 respectively (different superscripts denote statistically significant differences (pa-2.88±2.16, b-14.54±2.16, c-40.05±2.16, a-3.76±2.16 and d-29.48±2.16 for regimens R1-R5 respectively. R1 elicited statistically significantly greater SMHR versus all comparator regimens (p",
keywords = "Dentifrice, Enamel, Erosion, Fluoride, In situ, Mouthrinse, pH cycling, Regimen, Surface microhardness",
author = "Brenda Maggio and Guibert, {Rita G.} and Mason, {Stephen C.} and Ritu Karwal and Rees, {Gareth D.} and Sue Kelly and Domenick Zero",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/S0300-5712(11)70007-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
journal = "Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0300-5712",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "SUPPL. 3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of mouthrinse and dentifrice regimens in an in situ erosion remineralisation model

AU - Maggio, Brenda

AU - Guibert, Rita G.

AU - Mason, Stephen C.

AU - Karwal, Ritu

AU - Rees, Gareth D.

AU - Kelly, Sue

AU - Zero, Domenick

PY - 2010/11

Y1 - 2010/11

N2 - To compare the effectiveness of dentifrice/mouthrinse regimens in a clinical in situ erosion remineralisation model. Thirty-six subjects completed a randomised single-blind cross-over trial of five treatment regimens. R1: Dentifrice A [1450 ppm fluoride as the sodium salt (NaF), 50000 ppm potassium nitrate (KNO 3)] plus 450ppm fluoride (NaF) rinse; R2: Dentifrice A plus sterile water rinse; R3: Dentifrice B (fluoride-free Dentifrice A) plus sterile water rinse; R4: Dentifrice B plus 450 ppm fluoride (NaF) rinse; R5: Dentifrice C (1000 ppm fluorine as sodium monofluorophosphate, 450ppm fluoride as NaF) plus sterile water rinse. Subjects wore a palatal appliance holding eight pre-demineralised enamel blocks. A 60min interval separated in vivo use of dentifrice and rinse with the appliance retained in situ for 4h. Efficacy endpoints were percentage surface microhardness recovery (SMHR) following remineralisation, and percentage relative erosion resistance (RER) of recovered specimens following a subsequent in vitro erosive challenge. Statistical analyses included ANOVA and selected twin-tailed t-tests. Mean SMHR (±SE) was a42.14±1.39, b38.02±1.39, c30.57±1.39, b37.75±1.39 and c30.88±1.39 for regimens R1-R5 respectively (different superscripts denote statistically significant differences (pa-2.88±2.16, b-14.54±2.16, c-40.05±2.16, a-3.76±2.16 and d-29.48±2.16 for regimens R1-R5 respectively. R1 elicited statistically significantly greater SMHR versus all comparator regimens (p

AB - To compare the effectiveness of dentifrice/mouthrinse regimens in a clinical in situ erosion remineralisation model. Thirty-six subjects completed a randomised single-blind cross-over trial of five treatment regimens. R1: Dentifrice A [1450 ppm fluoride as the sodium salt (NaF), 50000 ppm potassium nitrate (KNO 3)] plus 450ppm fluoride (NaF) rinse; R2: Dentifrice A plus sterile water rinse; R3: Dentifrice B (fluoride-free Dentifrice A) plus sterile water rinse; R4: Dentifrice B plus 450 ppm fluoride (NaF) rinse; R5: Dentifrice C (1000 ppm fluorine as sodium monofluorophosphate, 450ppm fluoride as NaF) plus sterile water rinse. Subjects wore a palatal appliance holding eight pre-demineralised enamel blocks. A 60min interval separated in vivo use of dentifrice and rinse with the appliance retained in situ for 4h. Efficacy endpoints were percentage surface microhardness recovery (SMHR) following remineralisation, and percentage relative erosion resistance (RER) of recovered specimens following a subsequent in vitro erosive challenge. Statistical analyses included ANOVA and selected twin-tailed t-tests. Mean SMHR (±SE) was a42.14±1.39, b38.02±1.39, c30.57±1.39, b37.75±1.39 and c30.88±1.39 for regimens R1-R5 respectively (different superscripts denote statistically significant differences (pa-2.88±2.16, b-14.54±2.16, c-40.05±2.16, a-3.76±2.16 and d-29.48±2.16 for regimens R1-R5 respectively. R1 elicited statistically significantly greater SMHR versus all comparator regimens (p

KW - Dentifrice

KW - Enamel

KW - Erosion

KW - Fluoride

KW - In situ

KW - Mouthrinse

KW - pH cycling

KW - Regimen

KW - Surface microhardness

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78751676070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78751676070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0300-5712(11)70007-0

DO - 10.1016/S0300-5712(11)70007-0

M3 - Article

VL - 38

JO - Journal of Dentistry

JF - Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0300-5712

IS - SUPPL. 3

ER -