Schemehorn Bruce R, Moore Michael H, Putt Mark S
Dental Products Testing, Therametric Technologies, Inc., Noblesville, IN, USA.
J Clin Dent. 2011;22(1):11-8.
To evaluate, using conventional in vitro procedures, the abrasivity, enamel polishing properties, and stain removal effectiveness of various commercial dentifrices that have a variety of compositions and are marketed for cleaning, whitening, and/or polishing capabilities, and to examine their relationships between stain removal and abrasivity.
The Relative Dentin Abrasivity (RDA) method was used to measure abrasivity, and the Pellicle Cleaning Ratio (PCR) procedure was used to evaluate stain removal performance. A Cleaning Efficiency Index (CEI) was calculated using the RDA and PCR values. Enamel polish was determined on bovine enamel specimens using a reflectometer. All treatments were performed on a V-8 cross-brushing machine using aqueous dentifrice slurries and standard nylon-bristle toothbrushes. A total of 26 dentifrices, purchased at retail, were tested against the American Dental Association (ADA) calcium pyrophosphate reference standard.
All dentifrices removed extrinsic stain and produced some dentin abrasion, but scores ranged widely between products (from 36 to 269 for RDA and from 25 to 138 for PCR). The majority of dentifrices contained hydrated silicas, and those with high PCR scores often, but not always, had higher RDA values. Products containing other abrasives (e.g., dicalcium phosphate, sodium bicarbonate, and calcium carbonate) generally had lower RDA values and usually lower PCR scores. There were exceptions (e.g., refined kaolin clay) that had high PCR scores and low RDA values, resulting in higher CEI values. Similarly, brushing with all dentifrices significantly increased reflectance readings of acid-dulled teeth, but polish scores also were highly variable among products (ranging from 38 to 97). The polish scores of dentifrices containing hydrated silica varied extensively (ranging from 38 to 80), and the scores of products containing other abrasives fell within this same range, except for dentifrices containing either Fuller's earth (86) or kaolin (97).
With only a few exceptions, dentifrices marketed as "whitening" products were generally more abrasive to dentin, especially for those containing silicas. Similarly, aside from two non-silica products, those dentifrices advertised for polishing ability generally were no more effective than other products. The relationship between stain-removal ability and abrasivity of dentifrices was not necessarily direct.
采用传统体外实验方法,评估多种具有不同成分、用于清洁、美白和/或抛光功能并在市场上销售的商用牙膏的磨损性、牙釉质抛光性能和污渍清除效果,并研究它们在污渍清除和磨损性之间的关系。
采用相对牙本质磨损性(RDA)方法测量磨损性,采用薄膜清洁率(PCR)程序评估污渍清除性能。使用RDA和PCR值计算清洁效率指数(CEI)。使用反射仪在牛牙釉质标本上测定牙釉质抛光情况。所有处理均在V-8交叉刷牙机上使用牙膏水溶液和标准尼龙刷毛牙刷进行。共对26种零售购买的牙膏与美国牙科协会(ADA)焦磷酸钙参考标准进行了测试。
所有牙膏都能去除外源性污渍并产生一定程度的牙本质磨损,但不同产品的得分差异很大(RDA从36到269,PCR从25到138)。大多数牙膏含有水合二氧化硅,PCR得分高的牙膏通常(但并非总是)具有较高的RDA值。含有其他磨料(如磷酸二钙、碳酸氢钠和碳酸钙)的产品通常RDA值较低,PCR得分也通常较低。也有例外情况(如精制高岭土),其PCR得分高而RDA值低,从而导致较高的CEI值。同样,使用所有牙膏刷牙均显著提高了酸蚀牙齿的反射率读数,但不同产品的抛光得分也差异很大(从38到97)。含有水合二氧化硅的牙膏的抛光得分变化很大(从38到80),含有其他磨料的产品得分也在同一范围内,除了含有漂白土(86)或高岭土(97)的牙膏。
除少数例外情况外,作为“美白”产品销售的牙膏通常对牙本质的磨损性更大,尤其是那些含有二氧化硅的牙膏。同样,除了两种非二氧化硅产品外,那些宣传具有抛光能力的牙膏通常并不比其他产品更有效。牙膏的污渍清除能力与磨损性之间的关系不一定是直接的。