Remineralization of eroded enamel by dentifrices containing similar sources/concentrations of fluoride was investigated in situ. Fifty-three subjects completed a double-blind crossover study with 3 randomly assigned dentifrice treatments: placebo (0 ppm F, PD); reference (1,450 ppm NaF, RD) and test (1,450 ppm NaF + 5% KNO3, TD). Fluoride availability for each dentifrice was analyzed in vitro by standard tests (1-min fluoride release rate and enamel fluoride uptake). The subjects wore palatal appliances holding bovine enamel specimens previously eroded in vitro. Surface microhardness was determined before and after the in vitro erosive challenge, after in situ remineralization and after a second in vitro erosive challenge. ANOVA and pairwise comparisons were performed (α = 0.05). TD was superior to RD in the fluoride release tests, but similar to RD in the enamel fluoride uptake test. The mean percent surface microhardness recovery was 21.9 (standard deviation 8.0) for PD, 28.6 (8.0) for RD and 36.0 (8.0) for TD. The mean percent relative erosion resistance change was –58.8 (12.7) for PD, –31.3 (12.7) for RD and –27.3 (12.6) for TD. Both fluoride-containing dentifrices provided superior remineralization (p < 0.001) and erosion resistance (p < 0.001) compared to PD. The percent surface microhardness recovery demonstrated by the TD was significantly greater than for the RD (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference (p = 0.073) between TD and RD in relative resistance to further erosive challenge. The results suggest that fluoride availability may be different in dentifrices with similar sources/concentrations of fluoride, providing different levels of remineralization of eroded enamel.

Keywords:
Dentifrice, Erosion, Remineralization
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
2009
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.