Erosion protection benefits of stabilized SnF(2) dentifrice versus an arginine–sodium monofluorophosphate dentifrice: results from in vitro and in situ clinical studies

OBJECTIVES: The aim of these investigations was to assess the ability of two fluoride dentifrices to protect against the initiation and progression of dental erosion using a predictive in vitro erosion cycling model and a human in situ erosion prevention clinical trial for verification of effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A stabilized stannous fluoride (SnF(2)) dentifrice (0.454 % SnF(2) + 0.077 % sodium fluoride [NaF]; total F = 1450 ppm F) [dentifrice A] and a sodium monofluorophosphate [SMFP]/arginine dentifrice (1.1 % SMFP + 1.5 % arginine; total F = 1450 ppm F) [dentifrice B] were tested in a 5-day in vitro erosion cycling model and a 10-day randomized, controlled, double-blind, two-treatment, four-period crossover in situ clinical trial. In each study, human enamel specimens were exposed to repetitive product treatments using a standardized dilution of test products followed by erosive acid challenges in a systematic fashion. RESULTS: Both studies demonstrated statistically significant differences between the two products, with dentifrice A providing significantly better enamel protection in each study. In vitro, dentifrice A provided a 75.8 % benefit over dentifrice B (p < 0.05, ANOVA), while after 10 days in the in situ model, dentifrice A provided 93.9 % greater protection versus dentifrice B (p < 0.0001, general linear mixed model). CONCLUSION: These results support the superiority of stabilized SnF(2) dentifrices for protecting human teeth against the initiation and progression of dental erosion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Stabilized SnF(2) dentifrices may provide more significant benefits to consumers than conventional fluoride dentifrices.