↓ Skip to main content

Effects of a sodium fluoride- and phytate-containing dentifrice on remineralisation of enamel erosive lesions—an in situ randomised clinical study

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Oral Investigations, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 1,410)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of a sodium fluoride- and phytate-containing dentifrice on remineralisation of enamel erosive lesions—an in situ randomised clinical study
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00784-018-2351-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan E. Creeth, Charles R. Parkinson, Gary R. Burnett, Susmita Sanyal, Frank Lippert, Domenick T. Zero, Anderson T. Hara

Abstract

The objective of this work was to evaluate effects of a dentifrice containing sodium fluoride (1150 ppm F) and the organic polyphosphate phytate (0.85% w/w of the hexa-sodium salt) on in situ remineralisation of early enamel erosive lesions and resistance to subsequent demineralisation. Subjects (n = 62) wore palatal appliances holding eight bovine enamel specimens with pre-formed erosive lesions. They brushed their natural teeth with the phytate test dentifrice (TD); a positive control dentifrice (PC, 1150 ppm fluoride as NaF); a reference dentifrice (RD, disodium pyrophosphate + 1100 ppm fluoride as NaF) or a negative control dentifrice (NC, fluoride-free) in a randomised, double-blind, crossover design. Specimens were removed at 2, 4 and 8 h post-brushing and exposed to an ex vivo acid challenge. Surface microhardness (Knoop) was measured at each stage. The primary efficacy variable was relative erosion resistance (RER); other variables included the surface microhardness recovery (SMHR), acid resistance ratio (ARR) and enamel fluoride uptake (EFU). After 4 h, the results for RER, ARR and EFU were in the order PC > TD = RD > NC with PC > TD = RD = NC for SMHR. Results at 2 and 8 h were generally consistent with the 4 h data. Mineralisation progressed over time. Dentifrices were generally well-tolerated. In this in situ model, addition of phytate or pyrophosphate to a fluoride dentifrice inhibited the remineralising effect of fluoride. Both formulations still delivered fluoride to the enamel and inhibited demineralisation, albeit to a lesser extent than a polyphosphate-free dentifrice. Addition of phytate or pyrophosphate to a fluoride dentifrice may reduce its net anti-erosive properties.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Professor 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 23 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 39%
Unspecified 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 25 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,610,237
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#32
of 1,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,378
of 438,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#1
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,410 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,554 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.