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 T. Zero

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Scopus citations

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 (KNO3)] 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) wasa42.14±1.39,b38.02±1.39,c30.57±1.39,b37.75±1.39 andc30.88±1.39 for regimens R1-R5 respectively (different superscripts denote statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between treatment regimens). Mean RER (±SE) wasa-2.88±2.16,b-14.54±2.16,c-40.05±2.16,a-3.76±2.16 andd-29.48±2.16 for regimens R1-R5 respectively. R1 elicited statistically significantly greater SMHR versus all comparator regimens (p<0.01), and conferred statistically significantly greater RER than comparator regimens (p<0.0001) except R4 (p=0.70). The combination treatment of dentifrice A containing 1450 ppm fluoride with the 450ppm fluoride mouthrinse elicited significant enhancements in rehardening of incipient enamel erosive lesions, and significantly increased their subsequent resistance to a second erosive challenge.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)S37-S44
JournalJournal of Dentistry
Volume38
Issue numberSUPPL. 3
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2010

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of mouthrinse and dentifrice regimens in an in situ erosion remineralisation model'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this