A Comparative Study of Laboratory Dentifrice Abrasion Measuring Methods.

OBJECTIVES: Recently, a profilometry-based method for measuring toothpaste dentin abrasivity has been proposed to be equivalent to the traditional radiotracer RDA (relative dentin abrasion) procedure. This review outlines the findings and comparative assessment of laboratory studies used to measure the abrasivity of commercially available whitening dentifrices on human dentin. Traditional radiotracer and profilometry RDA-PE (Profilometry Equivalent) methods were assessed, with the objective of determining how they compare, and also to learn if the two techniques yield RDA values that are consistent with each other, specifically in ranking and potential for discrimination of three commercially available silica-based products. Chosen were regular toothpaste and two whitening dentifrices having abrasive properties against dentin ranging from medium to high.

METHODS: Dentin specimens underwent standard preparation, preconditioning, and abrasivity testing according to the ISO 11609 requirements for radiotracer method and RDA-PE. Three test dentifrices were used, each product containing various abrasive and polyphosphate agents, namely: Whitening Product A: Hydrated silica with disodium pyrophosphate (Crest® 3D Luxe); Product B: Hydrated silica (Crest® Cavity Protection); and Whitening Product C: Hydrated silica with tetrasodium pyrophosphate (Colgate® Ultrabrite Advanced Whitening). The products were chosen since they gave a range of RDA values from mid to high when compared with an ADA reference material that is given a value of 100.

RESULTS: The data were subjected to statistical and SNK (Student-Newman-Keuls) analyses. Both procedures yielded numerical RDA values that permitted a ranking of the three test dentifrices. However, there was no direct correlation of the RDA values obtained by profilometry with those from the conventional radiotracer method. Significantly, one dentifrice rated as most abrasive using the radiotracer method was rated as moderately abrasive using profilometry. Additionally, there was loss of statistical significance and discrimination between products with RDA-PE.

CONCLUSIONS: Given the lack of agreement between radiotracer and profilometry for the products tested in this study,it would appear that the RDA-PE method may not be equivalent to the traditional RDA radiotracer method, specifically in the higher abrasivity range.