See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292160476

A profilometry-based dentifrice abrasion method for V8 brushing machines part

II: Comparison of RDA-PE and radiotracer RDA measures

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS
2 199

4 authors:

Eva Schneiderman Ellen Colon

Procter & Gamble Miami University
17 PUBLICATIONS 342 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Donald J White Samuel St. John

Procter & Gamble Procter & Gamble
163 PUBLICATIONS 2,616 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 175 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Solid acid fuel cells View project

stannous fluoride research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Samuel St. John on 12 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Profilometry-Based Dentifrice Abrasion Method for V8 Brushing Machines
Part II: Comparison of RDA-PE and Radiotracer RDA Measures
Eva Schneiderman, PhD Ellen Colón, BS Donald J. White, PhD
The Procter & Gamble Company
Cincinnati, OH, USA

Samuel St. John, PhD

University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN, USA

Abstract
• Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the abrasivity of commercial dentifrices by two techniques: the conventional gold
standard radiotracer-based Radioactive Dentin Abrasivity (RDA) method; and a newly validated technique based on V8 brushing that
included a profilometry-based evaluation of dentin wear. This profilometry-based method is referred to as RDA-Profilometry Equivalent,
or RDA-PE.
• Methods: A total of 36 dentifrices were sourced from four global dentifrice markets (Asia Pacific [including China], Europe, Latin
America, and North America) and tested blindly using both the standard radiotracer (RDA) method and the new profilometry method
(RDA-PE), taking care to follow specific details related to specimen preparation and treatment.
• Results: Commercial dentifrices tested exhibited a wide range of abrasivity, with virtually all falling well under the industry accepted
upper limit of 250; that is, 2.5 times the level of abrasion measured using an ISO 11609 abrasivity reference calcium pyrophosphate as the
reference control. RDA and RDA-PE comparisons were linear across the entire range of abrasivity (r2 = 0.7102) and both measures
exhibited similar reproducibility with replicate assessments. RDA-PE assessments were not just linearly correlated, but were also propor-
tional to conventional RDA measures.
• Conclusion: The linearity and proportionality of the results of the current study support that both methods (RDA or RDA-PE) provide
similar results and justify a rationale for making the upper abrasivity limit of 250 apply to both RDA and RDA-PE.
(J Clin Dent 2015;26:61–65)

Introduction
The testing of dentifrice abrasivity is important for ensur-
ing the safety of toothpastes used for maintaining desirable
aesthetics of teeth throughout life. The gold standard method
used to test dentifrice abrasivity is radiotracer RDA.1 The adap-
tation of profilometry methods as an alternative means of assess-
ing dentifrice abrasivity has been codified by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)2 and the British
Standards Institute (BSI).3 The ISO method is categorized in
the form of an annex to the standard methodologies for assess-
ments of dentin wear, as described by Addy.4 An important
part of the validation of alternative methodologies for abra-
sive wear is the correlation of contemporary methods to estab-
lished radiotracer techniques, as these have been widely accept-
ed for over three decades. While published studies and general
acceptance of the ISO method support the suitability of pro-
filometry to abrasivity comparisons, systematic validation for
published techniques has been less than ideal. Previous studies
that have attempted to directly compare specific profilometry-
based techniques to conventional RDA have produced less
than satisfactory comparisons, particularly across the full range
of required abrasivities.5-8 The possibility of non-proportional
correlation between radiotracer RDA and profilometry meth-
ods proposed at the time of ISO adoption resulted in the rec-
ommendation for differing maximum abrasion limits, namely
250 maximum for radiotracer and 200 for profilometry.9 In a
2013 study, Sabrah and colleagues reported measuring higher
RDA values when using a refined version of the ISO profilom-
etry method. The authors concluded: “Sp (surface profile
method) needs further development before being considered
as an equivalent method to Rt (conventional radiotracer
method).”6
Recently, we reported on the successful development of a
highly refined profilometry-based abrasivity method, the RDA-
PE (Radioactive Dentin Abrasivity – Profilometry Equivalent),
which permits abrasion comparisons following brushing in
standard V8 brushing machines without the need for irradiat-
ed teeth.10 Contrary to previous profilometry methods, the newly
developed method provides a direct linear correlation to the
radiotracer RDA method across the scale used to measure den-
tifrice abrasivity. The success of these new developments has
led us to conclude the RDA-PE method can now be consid-
ered equivalent to the conventional radiotracer (RDA) method.
While our previous publication demonstrated the validity of
the new method using a series of test products of known abra-
sivity (low, medium, and high), the current study assessed a
wide range of marketed products, using both conventional RDA
and the RDA-PE methods to demonstrate the global applica-
bility of the new profilometry method.

61
62 The Journal of Clinical Dentistry Vol. XXVI, No. 2

Materials and Methods use, specimens were polished using serial grit aluminum oxide paper
Profilometry experiments followed the protocol as described by to a final surface roughness Ra < 0.1 µm. Surface hardness of dentin
White et al.10 specimens was measured using a Buehler Vickers Hardness Indenter
1600-6305 (Buehler, an ATW Company, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) with
V8 Brushing Machine and Brushes Vickers indentations made on damp specimens at a load of 300
A standard V8 cross-brushing machine was used (Sabri Dental, grams. To be acceptable for the study, specimens were required to
1404 Brook Drive, Downers Grove, IL, USA). The toothbrush used have an initial Vickers hardness of 30–70 (dentin). Prior to brush-
in testing was an American Dental Association (ADA) P40 Soft ing, specimens were masked by polyester tape (PRO067-7, Argon
(Chicago, IL, USA), rectangular head toothbrush with flat-trim Masking Inc., Monrovia, CA, USA) to create a window with at
bristles. Brushes were pre-conditioned for 20,000 strokes on the V8 least 3 x 6 mm2 of surface exposed, yet providing enough coverage
brushing machine in water under standard conditions prior to use. on the edges to ensure a reference surface for profilometric evalua-
tion of abrasive tissue loss was present.
Specimen Preparation
Human teeth were collected as part of a longstanding retrieval Dentifrices and Reference Standard
program coordinated with local dentists in the Cincinnati, OH, Dentifrices to be tested were acquired from supermarkets in four
USA area. Plano-parallel dentin specimens were prepared from different geographical regions (Asia Pacific [including China], Europe,
human root dentin sectioned as 3 x 5 mm slabs and mounted in Latin America, and North America] and are listed in Table I, along
blocks of methyl methacrylate. These specimens were ground, pol- with a listing of the abrasive used in each and the pH of the prod-
ished, and qualified for geometry as described previously. For final uct slurries. Care was taken to include “whitening dentifrices” from
Table I
Dentifrices Compared in RDA and RDA-PE, Including Abrasive Type and Slurry pH
Region Dentifrice Manufacturer Abrasive pH
Greater China/India
Colgate® Cavity Protection Colgate-Palmolive Ca(HCO3)2 6.8
Colgate® Trifecta Colgate-Palmolive CaCO3 9.7
Colgate® 360 Colgate-Palmolive Silica 8.1
Colgate® Anti Cavity Whitening Colgate-Palmolive CaCO3, Silica 9.5
Colgate® Pro-Argin™ Colgate-Palmolive CaCO3, Silica 8.8
Colgate® Strong Teeth (India) Colgate-Palmolive CaCO3 9.3
Darlie Expert White Hawley & Hazel / Silica 7.9
Darlie Green Tea Colgate-Palmolive Silica 6.9
Crest® Salt White™ Procter & Gamble CaCO3, Silica 9.0
Europe
Colgate® Total Colgate-Palmolive Silica 7.1
Elmex - Cavity Protection (kids) GABA Silica 4.8
Meridol GABA Silica 4.7
Elmex Erosion Control GABA Silica, Alumina 4.6
Dentalux Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG Silica 6.9
Latin America
Colgate® Tripla Ação Colgate-Palmolive CaCO3 9.5
Colgate® Maxima Protección Anticaries Colgate-Palmolive dicalcium phosphate 6.9
Colgate® Luminous White Colgate-Palmolive Hydrated silica 8.4
Oral B® Procter & Gamble CaCO3 8.7
Crest® Complete Procter & Gamble Silica 7.3
North America
Arm & Hammer® Advance White Stain Defense Church and Dwight Silica, NaHCO3 9.1
Colgate® Cavity Protection Colgate-Palmolive dicalcium phosphate 6.8
Colgate® Total Colgate-Palmolive Silica 7.1
Colgate® Total Advanced Whitening Colgate-Palmolive Silica 7.1
Ultrabrite® Advanced Whitening Colgate-Palmolive Silica 7.7
Colgate® Optic White Platinum Colgate-Palmolive Silica, Ca pyrophosphate 7.4
Aquafresh® Whitening Action GlaxoSmithKline Silica 6.7
Sensodyne® GlaxoSmithKline Silica 9.2
Crest® Cavity Protection Procter & Gamble Silica 6.9
Crest® Complete Deep Clean Procter & Gamble Silica 6.4
Crest® Pro-Health® Whitening Procter & Gamble Silica 5.3
USP reference standard Procter & Gamble Silica 6.7
Crest® Cavity Protection Procter & Gamble Silica 6.9
Crest® 3D White Luxe Procter & Gamble Silica 7.6
Crest® Complete + Scope Procter & Gamble Silica 7.5
Crest® Pro-Health® Procter & Gamble Silica 5.5
USP reference standard Procter & Gamble Silica 6.9
Vol. XXVI, No. 2 The Journal of Clinical Dentistry 63

the marketplace, as well as standard paste controls. Dentifrices were

prepared for profilometry testing by diluting 25 grams of paste and
40 grams of water with vigorous homogenization/mixing. An abra-
sivity standard slurry was prepared by adding 10 grams of standard
ADA calcium pyrophosphate reference abrasive (ISO 11609, Odontex,
Inc., Lawrence, KS, USA) to 50 grams of 0.5% carboxymethylcellu-
lose (CMC, 7MF Blanose Na-CMC Ashland Specialty Chemicals,
Covington, KY, USA). The 0.5% CMC solution was prepared by
mixing 100 grams of CMC into 200 grams of glycerin and 1790.5
grams of hot (70˚C) deionized water. The solution was mixed on a
stir plate using a magnetic bar for at least 30 minutes. This CMC
solution was left undisturbed for 24 hours before use.

Brushing Method
Specimens were fixed in the V8 brushing machine standard mounts,
taking care to ensure that the methacrylate was flush to the mount
base. The load of the brush on specimens was set to the RDA indus-
try standard of 150 grams and was verified at each V8 station using
a spring gauge each time a specimen was mounted. Brush oscilla-
tions per minute (BOPM) of the V8 machine was set at 170. Brushing
strokes were tuned to have the brush head stroke across specimens
for the entire brush head with the brush, losing contact and re-estab-
lishing contact with each stroke reversal. Specimens were brushed
for 4,000 strokes with either the test dentifrices or the ADA abrasive
standard. An internal RDA-PE 250 upper limit was achieved by brush-
ing with the abrasive standard for 10,000 strokes (2.5x the number
of strokes [4,000] used). All specimens were rotated through each of
the eight brushing stations (500 strokes on each brushing station) on
the V8 machine, and specimens were turned by 180˚ with each rota-
tion of 500 strokes. Dentifrice slurries were remixed at each rotation
to guard against abrasive settling.
Figure 1. Comparison of conventional RDA values vs. RDA-PE method for marketed
dentifrices from four geographical regions.
Virtually all commercial dentifrices exhibited abrasivity values well
within standard limits that have been historically established. RDA-
PE produced comparable results to RDA when measured against
formulations sold globally. The linear correlation of the techniques
was excellent throughout the RDA range, with a slope of 0.965
and r2 = 0.71.
There was similarly low variance in RDA-PE and RDA assess-
ments; between 11–27% for RDA and 7–21% for RDA-PE. Results
are captured in Figure 2 and in Table II.

Profilometry Assessments
Profilometric assessments of dentin wear were made with a Bruker
GT-K1 optical profilometer system (Bruker Corp, Billerica, MA,
USA). Mean depth of abrasion was measured as abraded depth
vs. control (masked area on the specimen surface).9

Correlation Studies: RDA Colgate Cavity Protection Crest Cavity Protection Crest Pro-Health Whitening
Standard radiotracer RDA values of test dentifrices were obtained
Figure 2. Variation in RDA-PE and RDA assessments of three different dentifrices –
through contract evaluations at the Therametrics laboratories (Dental individual measurements.
Product Testing Therametric Technologies, Inc., Noblesville, IN,
USA). Blinded dentifrices were shipped to the laboratory for stan- Table II
dard evaluations in radiotracer RDA assessments. RDA and RDA-PE Evaluations for
Control Dentifrices Tested Repeatedly
Variability in RDA and RDA-PE Assessments of Abrasivity Treatment* Replicates RDA # Study RDA-PE
Three dentifrices (Crest® Cavity Protection [Procter & Gamble (± SD) Replicates (± SD)
Company, Cincinnati, OH, USA], Colgate® Cavity Protection Crest Cavity Protection 26 100 (11) 8 118 (21)
[Colgate-Palmolive Company, New York, NY, USA] and Crest® Crest Pro-Health Whitening 14 197 (27) 11 188 (16)
Pro-Health® Whitening [Procter & Gamble]), representing three Colgate Cavity Protection 7 82 (12) 11 64 (7)
different ranges of dentifrice abrasivity, were evaluated in replicate *Dentifrices included in assessment were all sourced from North American markets.
tests for both RDA and RDA-PE to establish comparative vari-
ability in repeat measures with the techniques. Discussion
We have previously described the development of a method for
Results abrasivity based on specimens being treated using a V8 brushing
Figure 1 presents a graphical comparison of abrasion determined machine and assessed with profilometry.10 An important consider-
by RDA and RDA-PE, respectively, for the commercial pastes. ation in validating variations in methods for abrasivity is establish-
64 The Journal of Clinical Dentistry
ing adequate correlations to gold standard radiotracer assessments.
As already described, this has proven difficult for previous pro-
filometry-based methodologies across the complete range of desired
sensitivity.5-8 We believe the strict protocol for brush pre-condition-
ing, sample treatment, and post-treatment analysis in RDA-PE
yields a satisfactory correlation to the gold standard RDA.10 The
detail with which we have described this method makes it widely
accessible to other professionals investigating this process.
Results of the current study showed a linear and proportional
correlation between RDA assessed by radiotracer and RDA-PE.
The methods appear to be interchangeable in their capability to
assess dentifrice abrasivity. Overall, the range of abrasivities for
commercial dentifrices observed in this study is consistent with
recent screenings of commercial dentifrices.11-13 It was noteworthy
to see in these studies that virtually all commercial dentifrices exhib-
ited abrasivity values well within standard limits that have been
historically established. In addition, RDA-PE produced compara-
ble results to RDA when compared across formulations sold glob-
ally, regardless of the abrasive used in each formulation.
In developing this comparison, it was recognized that there is
technique variation for both methodologies in repeated assessments.
To assess this, three dentifrices were evaluated in replicate tests for
both RDA and RDA-PE to establish reproducibility. Products includ-
ed in this assessment were representative of the range of abrasivity
levels commonly sold in global dentifrice markets. Results are cap-
tured in Figure 2 and in Table II, where RDA and RDA-PE were
found to have comparable reproducibility in replicate assessments.
The direct correlation of radiotracer RDA with RDA-PE strong-
ly suggests, for the first time, that maximum standards for both
techniques should be reciprocal. This avoids situations where spec-
imens would exhibit acceptable abrasivity as assessed by RDA
(< 250), and yet be above the maximum established within ISO guide-
lines (> 200) if measured using previous profilometry methods. If
following the ISO guidelines, at least seven dentifrices from the group
tested would be excluded from the market based on RDA-PE assess-
ment without a justifiable reason (Figure 3). These seven denti-
frices are not unique in their compositions and come from differ-
ent manufacturers, are within the normal pH ranges, and have either
and/or both silica and/or calcium carbonate as their abrasive sys-
Figure 3. Development of common abrasion standards for RDA and RDA-PE.
Vol. XXVI, No. 2
tems. Synchronizing safety limits between the two methods to 250,
consistent with historically and accepted RDA values, results in
resolution of the standard dilemma. Figure 3 shows how the reci-
procity of RDA and RDA-PE permits adoption of a common max-
imum standard, at least for these specific techniques. The new method,
with a limit of 250, would find the “vast majority” of products test-
ed to be acceptable. Lower variance for RDA-PE at higher abra-
sion ranges and experimental determination of 250 in RDA-PE
render the new method slightly more discriminating, since it includes
a firm point for the upper limit versus an extrapolated data point
in RDA. Based on the outcomes of this study and our previous
study,10 there is no justification to maintain different maximum val-
ues when assessing the abrasivity of dentifrices, so long as the meth-
ods used are consistent with those reported herein.
It should be noted that the topic of abrasive standards has become
a subject of considerable academic, and some regulatory discus-
sion in recent years, based on contemporary concerns over poten-
tial changes since the establishment of methods and standards.14-16
Some researchers have suggested that changes in dietary-induced
dental erosion, power tooth brushing, length of tooth retention,
etc., may warrant reconsideration of abrasion guidelines. While an
interesting proposal, it can be argued that revisions in standards
should be minimally based on support of at least comparable qual-
ity to that which established current codified standards. In service
to this discussion, a separate publication provides a historical review
of the basis behind today’s established abrasivity standards for con-
sideration by contemporary manufacturers, researchers, and regu-
lators in future dialogues.17
Conclusion
The linearity and proportionality of the results of the current
study support the position that either method (RDA or RDA-PE)
provides suitable interchangeable measures of dentifrice abrasivity.
As an extension of this, RDA-PE can be applied in dentifrice abra-
sivity testing with a safety limit comparable to RDA; namely 250.
Acknowledgment: This study was supported by the Procter & Gamble Company.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Dr. Schneiderman, Ms. Colón, and Dr. White are
employees of The Procter & Gamble Company. Dr. St. John was an employee of
the Procter & Gamble Company when he contributed to the research described
herein.
For correspondence with the authors of this paper, contact Dr. Donald
J. White – white.dj.1@pg.com.
References
1. Hefferren JJ. A laboratory method for assessment of dentifrice abrasivity. J
Dent Res 1976;55:563-73.
2. ISO 11609 – Dentistry – Toothpastes- Requirement, test methods and
marking.
3. British Standards Institute (BSI). Radioactive Dentinal Profilometry Methods:
BSI 4137, 1981.
4. Addy M. Determination of relative dentifrice abrasivity to enamel and den-
tine by a surface profile method. J Clin Dent 2010;21(Suppl):13-4.
5. Kinoshita S, Arai T, Uraguchi R. Abrasive properties of commonly used
dentifrices. Bull Tokyo Med Dent Univ 1979;26:225-42.
6. Sabrah AHA, Lippert F, Kelly AB, Hara AT. Comparison between radio-
tracer and surface profile methods for the determination of dentifrice abra-
sivity. Wear 2013;306:73-9.
Vol. XXVI, No. 2 The Journal of Clinical Dentistry
7. Davis WB, Winter PJ. Measurement in vitro of enamel abrasion by denti-
frice. J Dent Res 1976;55:970-5.
8. Davis WB. A comparison of dentine abrasion data generated by radiotracer
and surface profilometer methods. J Oral Rehabil 1979;6:177-81.
9. Private communication with Dr. Martin Addy and Bruce Schemehorn, par-
ticipants in development of ISO profilometry standards.
10. White DJ, Schneiderman E, Colon E, St. John S. A profilometry based den-
tifrice abrasion method for V8 brushing machines Part I: The RDA-PE method
and correlation to conventional RDA. J Clin Dent 2015;26:1-6.
11. Schemehorn BR, Moore MH, Putt MS. Abrasion, polishing, and stain removal
characteristics of various commercial dentifrices in vitro. J Clin Dent 2011;
22:11-8.
12. Wülknitz P. Cleaning power and abrasivity of European toothpastes. Adv
View publication stats
65
Dent Res 1997;11:576-9.
13. Joiner A. Review of the extrinsic stain removal and enamel/dentine abrasion
by a calcium carbonate and perlite containing whitening toothpaste. Int Dent
J 2006;56:175-80.
14. Addy M. Tooth brushing, tooth wear and dentine hypersensitivity—are they
associated? Int Dent J 2005;55(4 Suppl 1):261-7.
15. Addy M, Hunter ML. Can tooth brushing damage your health? Effects on
oral and dental tissues. Int Dent J 2003;53(Suppl 3):177-86.
16. Wiegand A, Schlueter N. The role of oral hygiene: does toothbrushing harm?
In: Erosive Tooth Wear – From Diagnosis to Therapy, Lussi A, Ganss C, eds.,
Karger, Basel, pp. 215-9, 2014.
17. St. John S, White DJ. History of the development of abrasivity limits for den-
tifrices. J Clin Dent 2015;26:50-4.