AIM: This in vitro study evaluated the abrasiveness of acidic fluoride (F) dentifrices with different F concentrations on bovine enamel. METHODS: Enamel blocks (4.0x4.0 mm2, n=120) were selected according to their surface microhardness and divided into 12 groups. Slurries of dentifrices were used containing 0 (placebo), 275, 412, 550 and 1,100 ppm F (pH 4.5 or 7.0), as well as testing two commercial dentifrices (Crest™, positive control, 1,100 ppm F and Colgate Baby™, 500 ppm F). Enamel blocks were partially protected with an adhesive tape (control area) and then brushed by an automated toothbrushing machine (16,000 strokes). During this process, 0.4 ml of the slurries were injected every 2 mins on the enamel blocks. After toothbrushing, enamel wear was determined by profilometry. STATISTICS: Results were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p<0.05). RESULTS: The mean values for pH in the suspensions during treatment were 6.93, 4.32, 7.56 and 8.19 for neutral experimental dentifrices, acidic experimental dentifrices, Crest™ and Colgate Baby™, respectively. The abrasiveness of the acidic dentifrices was similar (p>0.05) to the neutral ones, whereas commercial dentifrices yielded lower abrasion (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: It was concluded that a reduction of the pH of dentifrices does not increase their abrasiveness.
dentifrice acidic abrasive
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Alves KM, Pessan JP, Brighenti FL, et al. In Vitro Evaluation of Effectiveness of Acidic Fluoride Dentifrices. Caries Res 2007; 41:263–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammari AB, Bloch-Zupan A, Ashley PF. Systematic review of studies comparing the anti-caries efficacy of children’s toothpaste containing 600 ppm of fluoride or less with high fluoride toothpastes of 1000 ppm or above. Caries Res 2003;37:85–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett DW, Smith BG, Wilson RF. Comparison of the effect of fluoride and non-fluoride toothpaste on tooth wear in vitro and the influence of enamel fluoride concentration and hardness of enamel. Brit Dent J 1994;176:346–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brighenti FL, Delbem ACB, Buzalaf MAR, et al. In vitro evaluation of acidified toothpastes with low fluoride content. Caries Res 2006:40: 239–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brudevold F, Chilton NW. Comparative study of a fluoride dentifrice containing soluble phosphates and a calcium-free abrasive: second-year report. J Amer Dent Assoc 1966;72:889–94.Google Scholar
Delbem ACB, Vieira AEM, Cury JA. Evaluation of the cariostatic potential of the fluoridated dentifrice most sold in the Brazilian market (Portuguese). Rev Brasil Odontol 2002;59:14–18.Google Scholar
Kielbassa AM, Gillmann L, Zantner C, et al. Profilometric and microradiographic studies on the effects of toothpaste and acid gel abrasivity on sound and demineralized bovine dental enamel. Caries Res 2005; 39:380–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuroiwa M, Kodaka T, Kuroiwa M, et al. Brushing-induced effects with and without a non-fluoride abrasive dentifrice on remineralization of enamel surfaces etched with phosphoric acid. Caries Res 1994;28:309–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mascarenhas AK. Risk factors for dental fluorosis: a review of the recent literature. Pediatr Dent 2000; 22:269–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Olympio KP, Bardal PA, Cardoso VE, et al. Low-fluoride dentifrices with reduced pH: fluoride concentration in whole saliva and bioavailability. Caries Res. 2007;41:365–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slack GL, Bulman JS, Osborn JF. Clinical testing of fluoride and non-fluoride containing dentifrices in Hounslow school children. Brit Dent J 1971;130:154–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vieira AEM, Delbem ACB, Sassaki KT, et al. Fluoride dose response in pH-cycling models using bovine enamel. Caries Res 2005;39:514–520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar