Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 775–783 | Cite as

Dentin tubule occlusion and erosion protection effects of dentifrice containing bioadhesive PVM/MA copolymers

  • Qin Wang
  • Yang Kang
  • Virginia Barnes
  • William DeVizio
  • Ajay Kashi
  • Yan-Fang Ren
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

To study the effectiveness of a dentifrice containing polyvinylmethyl ether-maleic acid (PVM/MA) copolymer in occluding dentin tubules and investigate the interaction between PVM/MA and type I collagen using surface plasmon resonance (SPR).

Materials and methods

Fifteen volunteers brushed dentin discs in situ using dentifrices with and without PVM/MA copolymer in a cross-over design. Dentin tubule occlusion was evaluated after brushing, after overnight saliva challenge in vivo for 12 h and after drinking 250 ml of orange juice. Dentin tubule occlusion and tubule size were compared between the two groups using repeated ANOVA and before and after erosive challenges using paired t tests. SPR using type I collagen as ligand and PVM/MA as analyte was performed to evaluate the binding of the two macromolecules.

Results

A median of 91 % of dentin tubules were occluded after a single brushing in the PVM/MA group, as compared to 9 % in the controls. After overnight saliva challenge and 10 min of erosion by orange juice, a median of 73 % of the dentin tubules remained fully occluded in the PVM/MA group as compared to zero in the controls. Dentin tubule size increased after orange juice erosion in the controls but not in the PVM/MA group. SPR study showed that PVM/MA bound readily to collagen molecules in a 4 to 1 ratio.

Conclusions

Dentifrice containing PVM/MA could effectively occlude dentin tubules and prevent dentin erosion. PVM/MA may improve adhesive retention of intra-tubular dentifrice plugs through binding to dentin surface collagen.

Clinical relevance

Brushing with dentifrice containing adhesive polymers has preventive effect against dentin erosion and dentin sensitivity.

Keywords

Dentin sensitivity Dental erosion Dentifrice Adhesive polymer 

References

  1. 1.
    El Aidi H, Bronkhorst EM, Truin GJ (2008) A longitudinal study of tooth erosion in adolescents. J Dent Res 87:731–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jaeggi T, Lussi A (2006) Prevalence, incidence and distribution of erosion. Monogr Oral Sci 20:44–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Addy M, Pearce N (1994) Aetiological, predisposing and environmental factors in dentine hypersensitivity. Arch Oral Biol 39(Suppl):33S–38SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    West NX (2006) Dentine hypersensitivity. Monogr Oral Sci 20:173–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee SY, Kwon HK, Kim BI (2008) Effect of dentinal tubule occlusion by dentifrice containing nano-carbonate apatite. J Oral Rehabil 35:847–853PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gandolfi MG, Silvia F, H PD, Gasparotto G, Carlo P (2008) Calcium silicate coating derived from Portland cement as treatment for hypersensitive dentine. J Dent 36:565–578Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fu B, Shen Y, Wang H, Hannig M (2007) Sealing ability of dentin adhesives/desensitizer. Oper Dent 32:496–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kolker JL, Vargas MA, Armstrong SR, Dawson DV (2002) Effect of desensitizing agents on dentin permeability and dentin tubule occlusion. J Adhes Dent 4:211–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macgregor IDM, Rugg-Gunn AJ (1985) Toothbrushing duration in 60 uninstructed young adults. Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol 13:121–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saxer UP, Barbakow J, Yankell SL (1998) New studies on estimated and actual toothbrushing times and dentifrice use. J Clin Dent 9:49–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu X, Barnes V, DeVizio W, Yang H, Malmstrom H, Ren Y (2011) Effects of dentin tubule occlusion by dentifrice containing a PVM/MA bioadhesive copolymer in a silica base. J Dent 39:293–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arweiler NB, Auschill TM, Reich E, Netuschil L (2002) Substantivity of toothpaste slurries and their effect on reestablishment of the dental biofilm. J Clin Periodontol 29:615–621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barnes VM, Richter R, DeVizio W (2010) Comparison of the short-term antiplaque/antibacterial efficacy of two commercial dentifrices. J Clin Dent 21:101–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andrews GP, Donnelly L, Jones DS, Curran RM, Morrow RJ, Woolfson AD et al (2009) Characterization of the rheological, mucoadhesive, and drug release properties of highly structured gel platforms for intravaginal drug delivery. Biomacromolecules 10:2427–2435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kockisch S, Rees GD, Tsibouklis J, Smart JD (2005) Mucoadhesive, triclosan-loaded polymer microspheres for application to the oral cavity: preparation and controlled release characteristics. Eur J Pharmacol Biopharmacol 59:207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kockisch S, Rees GD, Young SA, Tsibouklis J, Smart JD (2003) Polymeric microspheres for drug delivery to the oral cavity: an in vitro evaluation of mucoadhesive potential. J Pharmacol Sci 92:1614–1623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hombach J, Bernkop-Schnürch A (2010) Mucoadhesive Drug Delivery Systems. Handb Exp Pharmacol 197:251–266Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Driscoll CO, Dowker SEP, Anderson P, Wilson RM, Gulabivala K (2002) Effects of sodium hypochlorite solution on root dentine composition. J Mater Sci Mater Med 13:219–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brodsky B, Ramshaw JAM (1997) The collagen triple-helix structure. Matrix Biol 15:545–554PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Woodcock SE, Johnson WC, Chen Z (2005) Collagen adsorption and structure on polymer surfaces observed by atomic force microscopy. J Colloid Interface Sci 292:99–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maynard JA, Lindquist NC, Sutherland JN, Lesuffleur A, Warrington AE, Rodriguez M et al (2009) Surface plasmon resonance for high-throughput ligand screening of membrane-bound proteins. Biotechnol J 4:1542–1558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Willander M, Al-Hilli S (2009) Analysis of biomolecules using surface plasmons. Method Mol Biol 544:201–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Merwe PA (2001) Surface plasmon resonance. In: Harding SE, Chowdry BZ (eds) Protein–ligand interactions: hydrodynamics and calorimetry. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 137–170Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xu Y, Gurusiddappa S, Rich RL, Owens RT, Keene DR, Mayne R et al (2000) Multiple binding sites in collagen type I for the integrins Œ ± 1Œ ≤ 1 and Œ ± 2Œ ≤ 1. J Biol Chem 275:38981–38989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peppas NA, Buri PA (1985) Surface, interfacial and molecular aspects of polymer bioadhesion on soft tissues. J Control Release 2:257–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marshall SJ, Bayne SC, Baier R, Tomsia AP, Marshall GW (2009) A review of adhesion science. Dent Mater 26:e11–e16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stupp SI, Kusleika R (1985) Surface charge on polymeric implants and calcified tissues: interfacial implications. J Biomed Mater Res 19:321–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Andrews GP, Laverty TP, Jones DS (2009) Mucoadhesive polymeric platforms for controlled drug delivery. Eur J Pharmacol Biopharmacol 71:505–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Piao J, Lee J-E, Weon K-Y, Kim D-W, Lee JS, Park JDS et al (2009) Development of novel mucoadhesive pellets of metformin hydrochloride. Arch Pharmacol Res 32:391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Owens TS, Dansereau RJ, Sakr A (2005) Development and evaluation of extended release bioadhesive sodium fluoride tablets. Int J Pharm 288:109–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zaman MA, Martin GP, Rees GD (2010) Bioadhesion and retention of non-aqueous delivery systems in a dental hard tissue model. J Dent 38:757–764PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zaman MA, Martin GP, Rees GD (2008) Mucoadhesion, hydration and rheological properties of non-aqueous delivery systems (NADS) for the oral cavity. J Dent 36:351–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Andrade Acevedo R, Machon L, Chavez N (2009) Effectiveness of a mouthwash containing Triclosan and Gantrez in the reduction of biofilm and gingivitis: a clinical pilot study. J Contemp Dent Pract 10:E033–E040PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bolden TE, Zambon JJ, Sowinski J, Ayad F, McCool JJ, Volpe AR et al (1992) The clinical effect of a dentifrice containing triclosan and a copolymer in a sodium fluoride/silica base on plaque formation and gingivitis: a six-month clinical study. J Clin Dent 3:125–131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Panagakos FS, Volpe AR, Petrone ME, DeVizio W, Davies RM, Proskin HM (2005) Advanced oral antibacterial/anti-inflammatory technology: a comprehensive review of the clinical benefits of a triclosan/copolymer/fluoride dentifrice. J Clin Dent 16(Suppl):S1–S19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Esposito P, Colombo I, Lovrecich M (1994) Investigation of surface properties of some polymers by a thermodynamic and mechanical approach: possibility of predicting mucoadhesion and biocompatibility. Biomaterials 15:177–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sionkowska A, Skopinska-Wisniewska J, Wisniewski M (2009) Collagen-synthetic polymer interactions in solution and in thin films. J Mol Liq 145:135–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gracia LH, Brown A, Rees GD, Fowler CE (2010) Studies on a novel combination polymer system: in vitro erosion prevention and promotion of fluoride uptake in human enamel. J Dent 38:S4–S11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qin Wang
    • 1
  • Yang Kang
    • 1
  • Virginia Barnes
    • 2
  • William DeVizio
    • 2
  • Ajay Kashi
    • 1
  • Yan-Fang Ren
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Rochester Eastman Institute for Oral HealthRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Colgate Palmolive Technology CenterPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations