Skip to content

The erosion protection efficacy of a stabilized stannous fluoride dentifrice: An in situ randomized clinical trial

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
JournalAmerican Journal of Dentistry
DateAccepted/In press - 12 Mar 2019
DatePublished (current) - 1 Jun 2019


Purpose: To compare the enamel protection efficacy of a stabilized stannous fluoride dentifrice to a triclosan-containing sodium fluoride dentifrice using a 10-day in situ erosion model, in accordance with the American Dental Association Seal of Acceptance guidelines for enamel erosion control. 
Methods: In this single-center, double-blind, randomized, supervised-usage, 2-treatment, 4-period, crossover study, healthy adult subjects were randomized to a treatment sequence involving the following products: a 0.454% stannous fluoride (1100 ppm F) dentifrice (Procter & Gamble) and a control dentifrice containing 0.243% sodium fluoride (1100 ppm F) and 0.3% triclosan (NaF/triclosan, Colgate-Palmolive). Each study period consisted of 10 treatment days. Subjects wore an intra-oral appliance fitted with 2 polished human enamel samples for 6 hours per treatment day. While wearing the appliance, subjects swished with their assigned dentifrice slurry for 60 seconds twice daily and with 250 ml orange juice over a 10-minute period 4 times daily. After 10 days, enamel specimens were removed and measured for surface loss using contact profilometry. 
Results: Thirty-six subjects were enrolled and 33 completed the study (mean age = 41.8 years). The stannous fluoride dentifrice demonstrated 90.3% less enamel loss than the NaF/triclosan dentifrice (P < 0.001) at Day 10, with median enamel loss of 0.279 µm and 2.877 µm, respectively. Both products were well tolerated. 
Clinical Significance: The stannous fluoride dentifrice provided significantly greater protection against dental erosion relative to the NaF/triclosan dentifrice



  • Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)

    Rights statement: This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Mosher and Linder Inc at Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Accepted author manuscript, 339 KB, PDF document


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups