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.