title: Anticaries potential of commercial fluoride rinses as determined by fluoridation and remineralization efficiency.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The objective of this work was to compare the anticaries potential of several currently marketed fluoride-containing mouthrinse products using two in vitro approaches: 1) fluoride uptake studies of demineralized human enamel samples after exposure to rinse products; and 2) microhardness studies of sound enamel samples after exposure to the rinse products and demineralizing agents.
  
  
  METHODS
  Four currently marketed rinse products, formulated at 100 ppm F, were evaluated in fluoride uptake studies relative to a negative (water) rinse control (Study 1). The same rinse products were evaluated in microhardness studies (Study 2) against a positive control, ACT Anticavity rinse, which is formulated with 225 ppm F and carries the ADA Seal of Acceptance as an effective anticavity mouthrinse. Test products included ACT Total Care rinse (pH = 6.34), Listerine Total Care rinse (pH = 3.57), Crest Pro-Health for Me rinse (pH = 3.33), and Crest Pro-Health Complete rinse (pH = 3.43).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Study 1-Samples treated with any of the fluoride-containing rinses showed significantly higher (p < 0.05) levels of fluoride uptake than the negative (water) control. Two of the products (Crest Pro-Health for Me and Crest Pro-Health Complete) showed significantly higher (p < 0.05) levels of fluoride uptake into demineralized enamel than the other marketed rinses (Listerine Total Care and ACT Total Care). Study 2-Samples treated with the same two rinse products (Crest Pro-Health For Me and Crest Pro-Health Complete) showed significantly lower mineral loss than the other rinse products, as well as the positive control.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Results of these in vitro studies indicate that the Crest mouthrinse products evaluated here are capable of providing significantly better fluoridation of demineralized enamel, as well as significantly better protection against the initiation and progression of demineralization, compared to the other marketed fluoride-containing mouthrinse products tested.
authors.affiliation: The Procter and Gamble Company, Mason, OH, USA. faller.r@pg.com
authors.forename: R V
authors.initials: RV
authors.lastname: Faller
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Casey
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Amburgey
mesh_terms: D002327:Cariostatic Agents / Q000493:pharmacokinetics* / Q000494:pharmacology; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000378:metabolism* / Q000502:physiology; D005459:Fluorides / Q000493:pharmacokinetics* / Q000494:pharmacology; D006244:Hardness / Q000187:drug effects; D006801:Humans; D006863:Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; D009067:Mouthwashes / Q000493:pharmacokinetics* / Q000494:pharmacology; D012463:Saliva; D012969:Sodium Fluoride / Q000493:pharmacokinetics / Q000494:pharmacology; D017001:Tooth Demineralization / Q000517:prevention & control; D014089:Tooth Remineralization / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D002327:Cariostatic Agents; D009067:Mouthwashes; D012969:Sodium Fluoride; D005459:Fluorides