The Procter & Gamble Company, Reading, UK.
Int Dent J. 2014 Mar;64 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):43-50. doi: 10.1111/idj.12102.
To compare the erosion protection efficacy of a stabilised, stannous fluoride (SnF2 ) dentifrice versus a sodium fluoride (NaF) dentifrice using a modified in situ clinical model.
This study, a randomised parallel group in situ design with in vivo product use and ex vivo acid challenge, compared: A, a dentifrice containing 1,450 ppm F as NaF; B, a dentifrice containing 1,450 ppm F (1,100 ppm F as SnF2 + 350 ppm F as NaF); and T, tap water. Sample size was n = 4 per group (total of 12 subjects) and within each subject appliances were placed on each side of the mouth (left and right). Enamel specimens were placed in different positions of the mouth (front, mid-front, mid-rear, rear) in each appliance (total = 8 specimens per subject). Product treatment was twice per day (lingual brushing for 30 seconds followed by swishing for 90 seconds with the resultant product/saliva slurry) in vivo for 15 days, and ex vivo acid treatment (0.02 m citric acid 5 minutes four times per day; total exposure time = 300 minutes). Data were analysed using a general linear repeated measures model with treatment, side and position as fixed effects. Within subjects, correlations were modelled assuming a different correlation and variance for treatment B relative to the other groups. Pairwise treatment differences were performed using a 5% two-sided significance level.
Enamel loss (in μm) was significantly lower (P < 0.005) for treatment B versus treatments A and T. Treatment B reduced enamel surface loss by 86.9% relative to treatment A. There was no statistical difference in mean enamel loss (P = 0.51) between treatments A and T. Enamel loss was not statistically different for side (left vs. right; P = 0.44) or position (front, mid-front, mid-rear, rear; P = 0.36).
This modified in situ erosion model confirmed the enhanced erosion protection benefits of a stabilised SnF2 dentifrice versus a conventional NaF dentifrice, validating the ability of the model to safely and effectively demonstrate differences in the erosion protection potential of oral care products.
使用改良的原位临床模型比较一种稳定的氟化亚锡(SnF2)牙膏与氟化钠(NaF)牙膏的防蚀效果。
本研究采用随机平行分组的原位设计,体内产品使用和体外酸挑战,比较了以下两种牙膏:A,含 1450ppm F 的 NaF 牙膏;B,含 1450ppm F(1100ppm F 为 SnF2,350ppm F 为 NaF)的牙膏;T,自来水。每组样本量为 n=4(共 12 名受试者),每个受试者的口腔两侧(左侧和右侧)都放置有器械。每个器械中的釉质标本放置在口腔的不同位置(前、中前、中后、后)(每个受试者共 8 个标本)。体内每天处理两次(舌侧刷洗 30 秒,然后用产生的产品/唾液混合物漱口 90 秒),共 15 天,体外酸处理(0.02m 柠檬酸 5 分钟,每天 4 次;总暴露时间=300 分钟)。使用具有治疗、侧和位置作为固定效应的一般线性重复测量模型进行数据分析。在受试者内,假设处理 B 与其他组相比具有不同的相关性和方差,对相关性进行了建模。使用 5%双侧显著性水平进行两两治疗差异比较。
与处理 A 和 T 相比,处理 B 使牙釉质损失(以μm计)显著降低(P<0.005)。处理 B 使牙釉质表面损失相对于处理 A 减少了 86.9%。处理 A 和 T 之间的平均牙釉质损失没有统计学差异(P=0.51)。左侧与右侧(P=0.44)或前、中前、中后、后(P=0.36)的牙釉质损失没有统计学差异。
该改良的原位侵蚀模型证实了一种稳定的氟化亚锡牙膏相对于传统的氟化钠牙膏具有增强的防蚀益处,验证了该模型能够安全有效地显示口腔护理产品在防蚀潜力方面的差异。