Search

During the latter half of the six-year long "Panic of 1873," nitrous-oxide pioneer G.Q. Colton developed, advertised, and sold his dentifrice, "Dr Colton's Vegetable Dentonic" to supplement his dental anesthetic enterprise., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Decisions concerning use of fluoride in its many forms for caries prevention are more complicated now than in the past because of the need to balance these benefits with the risks of dental fluorosis. This article reviews pertinent literature concerning dental fluorosis (definition, appearance, prevalence), pre- and post-eruptive use of fluoride, esthetic perceptions of dental fluorosis, fluoride levels of beverages and foods, the Iowa Fluoride Study, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's "Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States." Water fluoridation and use of fluoride dentifrice are the most efficient and cost-effective ways to prevent dental caries; other modalities should be targeted toward high-risk individuals.

Information on the effects of fluoride concentrations above 1,100 ppm in dentifrices is not extensive in the literature. The objective of this meta-analysis was to examine and compare the anticaries effectiveness (in terms of DMFS scores) of 1,700 ppm, 2,200 ppm and 2,800 ppm F- ion (as sodium fluoride) dentifrices vs. an 1,100 ppm F- ion (as sodium fluoride) control dentifrice based on results from six double-blind, randomized clinical studies, each conducted over a two- to three-year period. The studies each enrolled approximately 1,200-2,000 male and female school children per treatment group in grades I through 8, and were conducted in areas with low fluoride content water supplies in the states of Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Oregon. Separate meta-analyses were performed on the study results (DMFS increment scores determined by visual-tactile examinations supplemented with radiographs) for the one-year, two-year and three-year examinations. Comparisons of the 1,700 ppm F-, 2,200 ppm F-, and 2,800 ppm F- groups vs. the 1,100 ppm F- group were based on pooling the effect sizes for these comparisons from the individual studies. The effect sizes were calculated in two different ways, reflecting the analyses that were performed in the original studies: 1) effects based on the sample means and variances; and 2) effects based on the adjusted sample means and mean squared error from an analysis of covariance. The results obtained from this meta-analysis provide evidence that the use of a 2,800 ppm F- ion, as sodium fluoride, dentifrice results in statistically significantly lower caries increment than the use of an 1,100 ppm F- ion, as sodium fluoride, dentifrice. This result was noted after one, two, and three years of dentifrice use. The 1,700 ppm F- and 2,200 ppm F- dentifrice groups showed some directional advantages over the 1,100 ppm F- dentifrice group, however the analysis did not establish these groups as statistically significantly better than 1,100 ppm F-. The meta-analysis based on analysis of covariance results was somewhat more sensitive to treatment group differences than the analysis based on sample means and variances, as was expected.

Early dentifrices contained natural ingredients, mostly in coarse particle form, and were quite abrasive. Salts, either sodium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, or a mixture of both, have also been used for tooth cleaning because of their ready availability and low cost. Because of both their relatively low intrinsic hardness and their high solubility, another advantage is low abrasivity. Their biggest disadvantage is a salty, unpalatable taste. Many modern dentifrices that contain sodium bicarbonate, either as the sole abrasive or one of several, disguise the saltiness with flavoring and sweetening agents. An almost inverse relationship exists between the percentage of baking soda in a dentifrice and its abrasivity. Sodium bicarbonate has no anticaries activity per se but is compatible with fluoride. In high concentrations, sodium bicarbonate is bactericidal against most periodontal pathogens. Most clinical studies have not found significant differences in periodontal response to baking soda as compared with other commercial dentifrices, probably because of its rapid clearance from the gingival sulcus. Sodium bicarbonate may not be the "magic bullet" for curing dental diseases, but its safety (if ingested), low abrasivity, low cost, and compatibility with fluoride make it a consummate dentifrice ingredient.

The dominance of the marketplace by dentifrices containing fluoride as sodium monofluorophosphate and sodium fluoride has given rise to great academic and commercial interest regarding the comparison of those two fluoride species. Since the 1970's, several comparative clinical trials have been conducted to investigate the relative anticaries efficacy of dentifrices containing these two agents, generally giving rise to equivocal results. Recently, attention has been turned to investigative efforts which employ information derived from the collective body of relevant comparative clinical studies available in the literature to establish an omnibus conclusion concerning this issue. Beginning with the sign test of Beiswanger & Stookey (1989), and continuing through the meta-analyses of Johnson (1993) and Proskin (1993), this line of research remains vital today. The recent publication of two studies (Marks et al, 1994; Stephen et al, 1994) previously documented in the literature only in abstract form (Conti et al, 1993; Stephen et al, 1993) has given rise to the need for the present meta-analytic reconsideration of the available data. As in the previous meta-analyses, the quantitative results obtained depended on the studies which provided data for the calculations. However, as also indicated in previously-documented meta-analyses, the clinical interpretation of the results, which was based on the guidelines published by the American Dental Association (Council on Dental Therapeutics, 1988), did not vary according to study selection.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The 10 pivotal caries clinical studies employed in a recent meta-analysis to compare the anticaries efficacy of sodium fluoride (NaF) and sodium monofluorophosphate (MFP) dentifrices were subjected to a critical review. When reporting the meta-analysis, the author (Johnson) considered these 10 pivotal caries clinical studies as "head-to-head" comparisons of NaF and MFP dentifrices. For the most part, it is difficult to find any common denominator among these 10 caries clinical studies since there were so many diverse factors associated with them. The 10 pivotal studies were conducted over a 20-year period of time in many different geographic areas of the world, using different protocols and study designs, different clinical examiners and caries assessment criteria, as well as evaluating commercially outdated or specially formulated dentifrices. Any attempt to integrate the results from these 10 studies is further complicated by the diversity of statistical methodology used to evaluate the results obtained from the studies. Also, in two of the 10 studies, the comparison of the fluoride dentifrices was obscured by the fact that the participating children used a fluoride mouthrinse during the course of the study. In any case, when all relevant dentifrice comparisons are made, the results of a critical review of the 10 pivotal ("head-to-head") caries clinical studies indicate the following: (1) In three of the studies (Gerdin/Zacherl/Forsman), depending upon how the data is viewed, it can either be shown that NaF dentifrices are favored over MFP dentifrices or that MFP dentifrices are favored over NaF dentifrices. (2) In one of the studies (Edward & Torell), the results are published only in abstract form and a full report of the study is not available. (3) In one of the studies (Koch, Petersson, Kling & Kling) it is reported that MFP dentifrices are favored over NaF dentifrices. (4) In two of the studies (Edlund & Koch, Koch et al) it is reported that NaF dentifrices are favored over MFP dentifrices. However, in both of these studies, there were serious imbalances in baseline caries status favoring the NaF dentifrice groups over the MFP dentifrice groups. In other words, the children using the MFP dentifrices were more prone to caries formation during the course of these studies than the children using the NaF dentifrices. Further, in these two studies there is a serious question regarding the soluble fluoride level of the commercially available MFP dentifrice that was used.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

A 36-month double-blind clinical caries study was conducted to determine the comparative anticaries efficacy of sodium monofluorophosphate (MFP) and sodium fluoride (NaF) as incorporated in dentifrice formulations. The test dentifrices which were utilized are commercially available in the United States and all have been granted the American Dental Association Seal of Acceptance for anticaries efficacy. The study was conducted in accordance with the 1988 Guidelines of the American Dental Association Council on Dental Therapeutics. The two formulations used in the NaF versus MFP comparison were Colgate Winterfresh Gel with 0.76% sodium monofluorophosphate in a silica base and Crest Regular Flavor Toothpaste with 0.24% sodium fluoride in a silica base. A third commercially-available NaF dentifrice, Colgate Junior Toothpaste with 0.243% sodium fluoride in a silica base, was included in the study for further comparison. Schoolchildren residing in Maine, U.S.A. received a baseline caries clinical examination and then were randomly assigned to the twice-daily use of one of the three dentifrices which were purchased in the marketplace and repackaged in plain white tubes. Caries clinical examinations were subsequently conducted after 2 and 3 years' use of the dentifrices. A total of 2,222 children participated in both the 2 and 3-year caries clinical examinations. The 36-month DFS (decayed and filled surfaces) and the DFT (decayed and filled teeth) mean caries increments for the three dentifrice groups were virtually identical. The children using the MFP formulation experienced a DFS of 1.50 and a DFT of 1.08; those using the Crest NaF formulation experienced a DFS of 1.48 and a DFT of 1.07; subjects in the third group (Colgate Junior Toothpaste, 0.243% NaF) had a DFS of 1.49 and DFT of 1.06. The statistical evaluation of the data consisted of the calculation of 90% confidence bounds for the ratio of (true) mean increments, in accordance with the 1988 American Dental Association Guidelines. Expressed in the language of the Guidelines, the analyses indicated that, (1) the anticaries efficacy provided by the MFP formulation, (Colgate Winterfresh Gel with 0.76% MFP) is "as good as" that provided by the NaF formulation, (Crest Regular Flavor Toothpaste, with 0.243% NaF), and (2) the anticaries efficacy provided by the one NaF formulation (Colgate Junior Toothpaste, with 0.243% NaF) is "as good as" that provided by the other, (Crest Regular Flavor Toothpaste, with 0.243% NaF).

The comparison of the anticaries efficacy of dentifrices containing sodium fluoride (NaF) and sodium monofluorophosphate (SMFP) has recently been addressed through a meta-analysis of published head-to-head clinical trials. Such an analysis is used to provide an omnibus conclusion on the basis of summary information obtained from several individual studies. An important aspect of a meta-analysis is the determination of which studies from among those available in the relevant literature are to be incorporated into the calculations. The statistical literature provides several perspectives with respect to this issue. A recently-published meta-analysis by Johnson (1993) resulted in the conclusion that dentifrices containing NaF provide significantly lower caries increments than do those containing SMFP. However, a similar analysis utilizing studies identified by Volpe, Petrone & Davies (1993) suggests that no such significant difference exists. The resolution of such conflicting results rests on clinical judgment concerning the issue of study inclusion. The clinical significance of the results of both of these analyses was considered. Despite the differences in the analyses, both support the conclusion that dentifrices containing SMFP provide equivalent anticaries protection as do those containing NaF, in accordance with the standards established in the current American Dental Association Guidelines for the comparison of fluoride dentifrices.