Effect of fluoride gels supplemented with sodium trimetaphosphate on enamel erosion and abrasion: In vitro study

Pancote, LP; Manarelli, Michele Maurício; Danelon, Marcelle; Delbem, Alberto Carlos Botazzo

doi:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2013.12.007

Cited by 26 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to F+Sn, the F+LPP group continued to exhibit enamel protection even when brushing was performed. This implies that the layer created by the combination between fluoride and polyphosphates is relatively resistant to toothbrushing abrasion, which is in agreement with a previous report that tested the antierosion/abrasion effect of a fluoridated gel supplemented with sodium trimetaphosphate, a cyclic polyphosphate [Pancote et al, 2014].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Influence of Toothbrushing on the Antierosive Effect of Film-Forming Agents

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the influence of toothbrushing on the antierosive effect of solutions containing sodium fluoride (225 ppm/F), stannous chloride (800 ppm/Sn), sodium linear polyphosphate (2%/LPP), and their combinations, and deionized water as negative control (C). Solutions were tested in a 5-day erosion-remineralization-abrasion cycling model, using enamel and dentin specimens (n = 8). Erosion was performed 6 times/day for 5 min, exposure to the test solutions 3 times/day for 2min, and toothbrushing (or not) with toothpaste slurry 2 times/day for 2 min (45 strokes). Surface loss (SL) was determined by noncontact profilometry. Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Brushing caused more SL than no brushing for enamel (mean ± SD, in micrometers: 52.7 ± 6.6 and 33.0 ± 4.5, respectively), but not for dentin (28.2 ± 1.9 and 26.6 ± 1.8, respectively). For enamel without brushing, F+LPP+Sn showed the lowest SL (23.8 ± 3.4), followed by F+Sn (30.6 ± 4.9) and F+LPP (31.7 ± 1.7), which did not differ from each other. No differences were found between the other groups and C (37.8 ± 2.1). When brushing, F+LPP+Sn exhibited the lowest SL (36.7 ± 2.4), not differing from F+LPP (39.1 ± 1.8). F, F+Sn and LPP+Sn were similar (46.7 ± 2.9, 42.1 ± 2.8 and 45.3 ± 4.6, respectively) and better than C (52.7 ± 4.3). Sn (55.0 ± 2.4) and LPP (51.0 ± 4.3) did not differ from C. For dentin, neither groups differed from C, regardless of brushing. In conclusion, toothbrushing did not affect the antierosive effect of F+Sn, F+LPP and F+LPP+Sn on enamel, although overall it led to more erosion than nonbrushing. F and LPP+Sn showed a protective effect only under brushing conditions, whereas Sn and LPP did not exhibit any protection. For dentin, neither toothbrushing nor the test solutions influenced the development of erosion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Influence of Toothbrushing on the Antierosive Effect of Film-Forming Agents

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7,8,20 However, there are limited reports on the association between phosphates and fluoride on the progression of dental caries and erosion. 19,[21][22][23]25,27 Confirming the study hypothesis, the use of a LFD containing 250 ppm F supplemented with TMP led to significantly lower enamel wear when compared to its counterpart without TMP. Moreover, the test dentifrices promoted significantly higher effect against erosion when compared to the positive control (1,425 ppm F).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…Enamel blocks were subjected to erosive challenges by immersion in soft a drink (Sprite TM , pH 2.8, 5 mL/block; Ribeirã o Preto, Brazil) during 5 min (unstirred), 4 times per day. 8,13,24,25 After each erosive immersion, the enamel blocks were washed with deionized water and immediately exposed to one of the toothpaste slurries (toothpaste/deionized water, 1:3, w/w; 5 mL/block) for 15 s at room temperature. 13 The enamel blocks were then washed in deionized water and stored in artificial saliva (5 mL/ block; unstirred; 37 8C) for 1 h between each acid challenge and the subsequent treatment.…”

Section: Erosive Challenge and Treatment With Toothpaste Slurriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro effect of low-fluoride toothpastes containing sodium trimetaphosphate on enamel erosion

Cruz¹,

Pessan²,

Manarelli³

et al. 2015

Archives of Oral Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Table 1 shows the composition of the experimental gels tested. For the NaF gel, the concentration that is usually present in in-office products was chosen [22]. For the Sncontaining gels, the Sn concentration was chosen based on a previous investigation [23].…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of sodium fluoride and stannous chloride associated with Nd:YAG laser irradiation on the progression of enamel erosion

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the progression of enamel erosion after treatment with gels containing sodium fluoride (NaF; 9047 ppm F) and stannous chloride (SnCl2; 3000 ppm Sn), associated or not with Nd:YAG laser irradiation. Sixty enamel specimens were prepared from bovine incisors and protected by a tape, leaving an exposed surface area of 4 × 1 mm. The specimens were immersed in 1 % citric acid (pH = 2.3) for 10 min to create an initial erosion lesion. After, they were randomly divided into six groups: (C) control: gel without active ingredient; (F): NaF gel; (F + Sn): NaF + SnCl2 gel; (laser): Nd:YAG laser irradiation (0.5 W; 50 mJ; ∼41.66 J/cm(2); 10 Hz; 40 s); (F + laser): NaF gel + Nd:YAG; (F + Sn + laser): NaF + SnCl2 gel + Nd:YAG. All gels had pH = 4.5 and were applied for 1 min. Laser irradiation was performed after gel application. The specimens were then submitted to a 5-day erosion-remineralization cycling model using 1 % citric acid (pH = 2.3), six times per day. Enamel surface loss (SL) was analyzed by optical profilometry in the end of the cycling (in μm). Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Holm-Sidak tests (alpha = 0.05). The control and the laser groups presented the highest enamel loss (means ± SD = 53.52 ± 3.65 and 53.30 ± 2.73, respectively), followed by F + Sn (44.76 ± 2.83). The groups F (36.76 ± 2.28), F + laser (36.25 ± 3.59), and F + Sn + laser (39.83 ± 4.62) showed the lowest enamel loss, with no significant difference among them (p > 0.05). In conclusion, NaF by itself or associated with SnCl2 and Nd:YAG laser was able to reduce enamel erosion progression. Nd:YAG laser alone did not show a protective effect.

show abstract

Effect of fluoride gels supplemented with sodium trimetaphosphate on enamel erosion and abrasion: In vitro study

Cited by 26 publications

References 24 publications

Influence of Toothbrushing on the Antierosive Effect of Film-Forming Agents

Influence of Toothbrushing on the Antierosive Effect of Film-Forming Agents

In vitro effect of low-fluoride toothpastes containing sodium trimetaphosphate on enamel erosion

Effect of sodium fluoride and stannous chloride associated with Nd:YAG laser irradiation on the progression of enamel erosion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About