Effect of an experimental TiF4/NaF solution in preventing tooth erosion

OBJECTIVE

This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled in vivo study investigating the protective potential of a titanium tetrafluoride/ sodium fluoride (TiF4/NaF) solution compared to its respective positive and negative controls under an in vivo model, as well as the perception of participants regarding the use of this experimental solution.

METHODS

After the ethics approval and the selection procedures, 33 participants were divided into three treatments: TiF4/NaF solution (500 ppm F, pH 4.4); AmF/NaF/SnCl2-mouthwash (500 ppm F, pH 4.5) and water (pH 7.0) (n = 11). After professional cleaning, the participants rinsed with one of the solutions for one minute and waited two hours for the erosive challenge. The erosive solution (1 % citric acid, pH 2.5) was applied for 10 s on each central incisor (enamel area: 4 mm2) and collected for calcium analysis using III Arsenazo colorimetric method. The Ca2+ release data were compared using Kruskal-Wallis/ Dunn tests (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Teeth treated with both fluoride solutions released less calcium into the acid (median and interquartile interval: TiF4/NaF - 0.45/0.19 mM and AmF/NaF/SnCl2 - 0.46/0.15 mM Ca2+, p = 0.99) compared to the negative control (1.12/0.42 mM Ca2+, 60 % reduction, p < 0.0006). For both F solutions, only one participant per group reported unpleasant taste. Four participants belonging to AmF/NaF/SnCl2-mouthwash reported burning sensation post-rinse, while only one participant described such feeling after TiF4/NaF rinsing.

CONCLUSION

The experimental TiF4/NaF solution was as effective as the commercial AmF/NaF/SnCl2-mouthwash in protecting enamel against erosive demineralization with a good acceptability by the participants.

Effect of a Toothpaste Containing Surface Pre-Reacted Glass-Ionomer Filler on the Remineralization of Artificial Carious Enamel Lesions in situ

This study evaluated the remineralizing effect of a toothpaste containing surface pre-reacted glass-ionomer (S-PRG) filler on demineralized enamel in situ. For this, 180 bovine enamel samples were demineralized by using a microcosm biofilm model for 3 days. Thereafter, the samples were randomly signed to 15 healthy volunteers and to 3 cross-over in situ phases corresponding to the following treatments: (1) toothpaste containing 1,500 ppm F as NaMFP (positive control, Colgate®Cavity Protection), (2) toothpaste containing 5% S-PRG filler (Shofu®), and (3) placebo toothpaste (negative control prepared by Shofu®). Four demineralized enamel blocks were fixed into each palatal appliance per phase. The volunteers wore the appliances for 5 days and were trained to brush their teeth 2 times for 2 min a day, while one drop of the toothpaste's slurry (1:3) was dripped on each sample for the same period. The surface hardness and TMR analyses were done and analyzed by ANOVA/Tukey and t test (p < 0.05). S-PRG filler and Colgate® toothpastes were equally able to improve 2-2.5× enamel remineralization by the analysis of % surface hardness recovery. However, S-PRG toothpaste was the only one able to significantly improve ΔΔZ (the integrated mineral loss recovery: 1,489 ± 503 %vol.μm) compared to placebo (1,050 ± 467 %vol.μm), while Colgate® did not differ from placebo. No differences were seen between the groups with respect to ΔLD. S-PRG filler and Colgate® toothpastes show similar potential to remineralize the lesion surface. However, S-PRG toothpaste is better to recover mineral loss at the subsurface area.

Effect of TiF4/NaF and chitosan solutions on biofilm formation and prevention of dentin demineralization

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the effect of experimental solutions containing TiF₄/NaF and chitosan on bacterial species of microcosm biofilm and on dentin demineralization.

DESIGN

Microcosm biofilm was produced from human saliva mixed with McBain medium (0.2% sucrose) on bovine dentin for 5 days, under 5% CO₂ and 37 °C. From the 2nd day to 5th day, the treatments were applied (1×60s/day) as following: (1) NaF (500 ppm F^-, positive control); (2) TiF₄ and NaF (TiF₄: 190 ppm Ti⁴⁺ and 300 ppm F^-; NaF: 190 ppm F^-); (3) similar to 2 plus 0.5% chitosan (Ch 500 mPa.s, 75% deacetylation); (4) phosphate buffer solution (negative control); and (5) 0.5% chitosan (Ch 500 mPa.s, 75% deacetylation). CFU counting was performed for total microorganism, total streptococci, total lactobacilli and mutans streptococci. Dentin demineralization was measured by transverse microradiography-TMR. The data were compared using ANOVA/Tukey or Kruskal-Wallis/Dunn tests (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

No differences were found between the treatments with respect to CFU counting (p > 0.05). Dentin treated with TiF₄/NaF plus chitosan solution presented the lowest demineralization compared to the negative control and pure chitosan solution. On the other hand, this experimental solution did not significantly differ from TiF₄/NaF solution, being both able to significantly reduce mineral loss.

CONCLUSION

TiF₄/NaF plus chitosan solution, at suitable pH to be clinically applicable, had no antimicrobial effect, but it was able to reduce dentin caries development under this model.