Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Role of desensitizing/whitening dentifrices in enamel wear

Full text
Author(s):
Lima, Leonardo Custodio de [1] ; Viana, Itallo Emidio Lira [1] ; Paz, Sara Lais Pereira da [1] ; Bezerra, Savio Jose Cardoso [1] ; Joao-Souza, Samira Helena [2] ; Carvalho, Thiago Saads [2] ; Scaramucci, Tais [1]
Total Authors: 7
Affiliation:
[1] Univ Sao Paulo, Sch Dent, Dept Restorat Dent, Av Prof Lineu Prestes 2227, BR-05508000 Sao Paulo, SP - Brazil
[2] Univ Bern, Dept Restorat Prevent & Pediat Dent, Freiburgstr 7, CH-3010 Bern - Switzerland
Total Affiliations: 2
Document type: Journal article
Source: Journal of Dentistry; v. 99, AUG 2020.
Web of Science Citations: 0
Abstract

Objectives: To analyze the impact of desensitizing (D) and/or whitening (W) dentifrices on erosion and erosionabrasion. Methods: Enamel specimens were allocated into 10 groups (n = 20): 1. Artificial saliva (control); 2. Sensodyne Repair\&Protect (SRP-D); 3. Sensodyne Repair\&Protect Whitening (SRP-W); 4. Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief (CSPR-D); 5. Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief Real White (CSPRR-W); 6. Colgate Total 12 (CT); 7. Colgate Total 12 Professional Whitening (CTP-W); 8. Sensodyne True White (ST-W); 9. Curaprox Black is White (CB-W); 10. Oral-B 3D White Perfection (OB3D-W). For abrasion (n = 10), 30,000 brushing strokes were performed and surface roughness (SR) was evaluated. Erosion-abrasion (n = 10) consisted of 1 % citric acid (2 min), artificial saliva (60 min); 6 x /day; 5 days. Toothbrushing was carried out 2 x /day (45 strokes). Surface loss (SL) was determined with an optical profilometer. Data were statistically analyzed (alpha = 0.05). Results: Relative to SR, only OB3D-W had a significantly rougher surface than the control (p = 0.014). SRP-D, CSPR-D and ST-W showed no difference from the baseline. High SL was observed for ST-W, OB3D-W and CTP-W, without significant differences from the control. CT showed the lowest SL, not differing from SRP-D and SRP-W. There was a weak negative correlation between SL and concentration of free fluoride in the slurries, SL and SR, and SL and pH, all p > 0.05. Conclusions: Only one dentifrice increased surface roughness of enamel to a higher degree than brushing with saliva. Brushing with the test dentifrices did not cause higher enamel erosive wear than brushing with saliva. Clinical significance: This study enhances our knowledge on the effect of desensitizing and whitening dentifrices, indicating that they do not worsen enamel loss due to abrasion and they might be a safe option for individuals with erosive tooth wear. (AU)

FAPESP's process: 18/07284-8 - In vitro evaluation of roughness and color change of bovine enamel submitted to tooth brushing with different whitening and desensitizing dentifrices
Grantee:Sara Laís Pereira da Paz
Support type: Scholarships in Brazil - Scientific Initiation
FAPESP's process: 18/09335-9 - In vitro evaluation of surface loss and color change of bovine enamel submitted to erosive/abrasive challenges with different whitening and desensitizing dentifrices
Grantee:Leonardo Custódio de Lima
Support type: Scholarships in Brazil - Master
FAPESP's process: 17/14691-6 - Anti-erosive and anti-abrasive effect of a hybrid coating associated or not to sodium fluoride or sodium fluoride and stannous chloride on enamel and dentin
Grantee:Taís Scaramucci Forlin
Support type: Regular Research Grants