The development of a new desensitising mouthwash containing arginine, PVM/MA copolymer, pyrophosphates, and sodium fluoride—A hydraulic conductance study

Ingredients in Commercially Available Mouthwashes

OBJECTIVES

Mouthwashes, a cornerstone of oral and dental hygiene, play a pivotal role in combating the formation of dental plaque, a leading cause of periodontal disease and dental caries. This study aimed to review the composition of mouthwashes found on retail shelves in Turkey and evaluate their prevalence and side effects, if any.

METHODS

The mouthwashes examined were sourced from the 5 largest chain stores in each district of Istanbul. A comprehensive list of the constituents was meticulously recorded. The research was supported by an extensive compilation of references from scholarly databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect. Through rigorous analysis, the relative proportions of mouthwash ingredients and components were determined.

RESULTS

A total of 45 distinctive variations of mouthwashes, representing 17 prominent brands, were identified. Amongst the 116 ingredients discovered, 70 were evaluated for potential adverse effects and undesirable side effects. The aroma of the mouthwash (n = 45; 100%), as welll as their sodium fluoride (n = 28; 62.22%), sodium saccharin (n = 29; 64.44%), sorbitol (n = 21; 46.6%), and propylene glycol (n = 28; 62.22%) content were the main undesireable features.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited array of mouthwashes found on store shelves poses a concern for both oral and public health. Furthermore, the intricate composition of these products, consisting of numerous ingredients with the potential for adverse effects, warrants serious attention. Both clinicians and patients should acknowledge the importance and unwarranted side effects of the compnents of the mouthwashes.

Surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on root dentin treated with diode laser and conventional desensitizing agents

The treatments for dentin hypersensitivity (DH) may change the surface roughness of the root dentin, which can lead to biofilm accumulation, increasing the risk of root caries. The aim was to compare the surface roughness of root dentin after different treatments of DH and the biofilm formation on those surfaces. After initial surface roughness (Sa) assessment, 50 bovine root fragments received the following treatments (n = 10): G 1-no treatment; G2-5% sodium fluoride varnish; G3-professional application of a desensitizing dentifrice; G4-toothbrushing with a desensitizing dentifrice; and G5-diode laser application (908 nm; 1.5 W, 20 s). The Sa was reevaluated after treatments. Afterward, all samples were incubated in a suspension of Streptococcus mutans at 37 °C for 24 h. The colony-forming units (CFU) were counted using a stereoscope, and the results were expressed in CFU/mL. The one-way ANOVA and the Tukey's tests compared the roughness data and the results obtained on the bacterial adhesion test (α = 5%). G2 (2.3 ± 1.67%) showed similar Sa variation than G1 (0.25 ± 0.41%) and G5 (5.69 ± 0.99%), but different from group G3 (9.05 ± 2.39%). Group 4 showed the highest Sa variation (30.02 ± 3.83%; p < 0.05). Bacterial adhesion was higher in G4 (2208 ± 211.9), suggesting that bacterial growth is greater on rougher surfaces. The diode laser and the conventional treatments for DH may change the surface roughness of the root dentin, but only brushing with desensitizing dentifrice induced a higher bacteria accumulation on root dentin surface.

In Vitro Ability of a Novel Nanohydroxyapatite Oral Rinse to Occlude Dentine Tubules

Objectives. The aim of the study was to investigate the ability of a novel nanohydroxyapatite (nHA) desensitizing oral rinse to occlude dentine tubules compared to selected commercially available desensitizing oral rinses. Methods. 25 caries-free extracted molars were sectioned into 1 mm thick dentine discs. The dentine discs (n = 25) were etched with 6% citric acid for 2 minutes and rinsed with distilled water, prior to a 30-second application of test and control oral rinses. Evaluation was by (1) Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) of the dentine surface and (2) fluid flow measurements through a dentine disc. Results. Most of the oral rinses failed to adequately cover the dentine surface apart from the nHa oral rinse. However the hydroxyapatite, 1.4% potassium oxalate, and arginine/PVM/MA copolymer oral rinses, appeared to be relatively more effective than the nHA test and negative control rinses (potassium nitrate) in relation to a reduction in fluid flow measurements. Conclusions. Although the novel nHA oral rinse demonstrated the ability to occlude the dentine tubules and reduce the fluid flow measurements, some of the other oral rinses appeared to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in fluid flow through the dentine disc, in particular the arginine/PVM/MA copolymer oral rinse.

Dentine sensitivity: past, present and future

OBJECTIVE

This review defines dentine sensitivity (DS), its prevalence, its aetiology, the mechanism(s) responsible for DS, its diagnosis and its treatment. The review then examines the modes of action of various treatments for DS including potassium salts, strontium salts, bioglasses, arginine/calcium carbonate and professional treatments such as adhesives and oxalates. The methods used to evaluate the various treatment modalities are discussed, including laboratory studies and randomised controlled clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Ovid Medline and Cochrane reviews for information on DS and its treatments, as well as laboratory and clinical studies used to evaluate the efficacy of various DS treatments. With regard to efficacy of treatments for DS only reports of clinical studies that were randomised, controlled and blinded were reviewed. The authors offer new insights into the shortcomings of the recent systematic review of the use of oxalates for DS.

CONCLUSION

The authors introduce the concept of a novel desensitising mouthrinse containing 1.4% potassium oxalate: Listerine® Advanced Defence Sensitive mouthrinse. Readers of this supplement issue of the Journal of Dentistry are invited to review the significance of managing the clinical problem of DS. They are also invited to assess data from laboratory and randomised controlled clinical studies in order to understand the advantages offered by regular use of 1.4% potassium oxalate-containing mouthrinse, Listerine Advanced Defence Sensitive, in particular its resistance to daily erosive and/or abrasive challenges.