A clinical study to measure anti‐erosion properties of a stabilized stannous fluoride dentifrice relative to a sodium fluoride/triclosan dentifrice

• Published in: International journal of dental hygiene Vol. 15; no. 2; pp. 113 - 119
• Main Authors: West, NX, Seong, J, Hellin, N, Eynon, H, Barker, ML, He, T
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.05.2017
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Citrus; Cross-Over Studies; dentifrice; Dentifrices; Dentistry; Double-Blind Method; erosion; Female; Fluorides, Topical - therapeutic use; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; sodium fluoride; Sodium Fluoride - therapeutic use; stannous fluoride; Tin Fluorides - therapeutic use; Tooth Erosion - prevention & control; triclosan; Triclosan - therapeutic use; erosion; triclosan; stannous fluoride; dentifrice; sodium fluoride
• ISSN: 1601-5029; 1601-5037
• DOI: 10.1111/idh.12159

Objective To compare the enamel protection efficacy of a stabilized stannous fluoride (SnF2) dentifrice to a sodium fluoride (NaF)/triclosan dentifrice following acidic erosive challenge. Methods In this in situ, randomized, controlled, double‐blind, two‐treatment, four‐period crossover clinical trial, subjects wore an appliance fitted with human enamel samples 6 h day−1 during each 15‐day treatment period. Twice each treatment day they swished with their assigned dentifrice slurry: 0.454% SnF2/0.077% NaF or 0.32% NaF/0.3% triclosan. After each treatment and two other times daily, subjects swished with 250 ml of orange juice over a 10‐min period (acidic erosive challenge). Enamel samples were measured for tooth surface loss using contact profilometry at baseline and days 10 and 15. Results Thirty‐six subjects (mean age 44.8 years, range 23–65 years) were randomized to treatment; 33 subjects completed the final study visit. There were no statistically significant baseline differences (P > 0.44) in the specimen surfaces of the two dentifrice treatment groups via profilometry. At day 10, the SnF2 dentifrice provided a statistically significant (P < 0.0001) reduction in enamel loss by 67% versus the NaF/triclosan dentifrice with estimated medians of 1.22 and 3.68 μm, respectively. At day 15, the SnF2 dentifrice again provided a significantly greater benefit (P < 0.0001) against tooth surface loss versus the NaF/triclosan dentifrice, with 68% less erosion, and estimated medians of 1.60 and 5.03 μm, respectively. Both dentifrices were well tolerated. Conclusion A stabilized SnF2 dentifrice provided superior protection against the initiation and progression of tooth enamel surface loss in situ after erosive challenge compared to a NaF/triclosan dentifrice.