The Health Bureau Ltd, Haversham, UK.
Int Dent J. 2012 Aug;62(4):213-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2012.00116.x. Epub 2012 Jun 14.
This study assessed total and free fluoride concentrations in samples of toothpaste from Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, the Netherlands and Suriname, and investigated the labelling practices of the respective manufacturers.
Convenience samples were bought in the five countries and sent for analysis to the Netherlands. Levels of total and free available fluoride were measured. Details of the information declared on the packaging about type of fluoride and abrasives were recorded, and manufacturing and expiry dates were noted.
A total of 119 samples of toothpaste were analysed. With one exception, all samples from the Netherlands complied with ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) labelling requirements and there were no differences between the fluoride content declared and that found to be present on analysis. In samples purchased in the other countries, sodium monofluorophosphate (SMFP) toothpastes predominantly showed a low percentage of free available fluoride and the majority of toothpastes did not follow standard labelling guidelines.
This study is not representative of any of the brands analysed, yet it highlights problematic discrepancies in products across countries. These may be related to the lack of a generally accepted methodology for analysing total and free fluoride content, absence of an agreement on the minimum concentration of fluoride required to ensure efficacy, weak regulating institutions that are unable to control labelling and consumer information, as well as a possible influx of counterfeit low-quality toothpaste.
Renewed international focus should be directed towards closing gaps in guidelines and standards. Consumers should use only non-expired toothpaste, which should preferably be silica-based fluoride toothpaste that does not include abrasives containing calcium and that is properly labelled.
本研究评估了文莱、柬埔寨、老挝、荷兰和苏里南牙膏样本中的总氟和游离氟浓度,并调查了各自制造商的标签标注做法。
在这五个国家购买了便利样本,并将其送到荷兰进行分析。测量了总氟和游离氟的含量。记录了包装上关于氟化物类型和磨料的信息声明的详细信息,并注意了制造日期和有效期。
共分析了 119 个牙膏样本。除了一个例外,荷兰的所有样本都符合 ISO(国际标准化组织)标签要求,声明的氟含量与分析发现的氟含量没有差异。在其他国家购买的样本中,单氟磷酸钠(SMFP)牙膏主要显示出低比例的游离可用氟,而且大多数牙膏不符合标准标签指南。
本研究不代表任何分析的品牌,但它强调了各国产品之间存在的问题差异。这些问题可能与缺乏分析总氟和游离氟含量的普遍接受方法有关,缺乏确保功效所需的最低氟化物浓度的协议,监管机构薄弱,无法控制标签和消费者信息,以及可能涌入假冒的低质量牙膏。
应重新将国际重点放在弥合指南和标准方面的差距上。消费者应仅使用未过期的牙膏,最好是不含钙的磨料的含硅氟化物牙膏,并应正确标注。