A Profilometry-Based Dentifrice Abrasion Method for V8 Brushing Machines Part III: Multi-Laboratory Validation Testing of RDA-PE.
OBJECTIVES
We have previously reported on progress toward the refinement of profilometry-based abrasivity testing of dentifrices using a V8 brushing machine and tactile or optical measurement of dentin wear. The general application of this technique may be advanced by demonstration of successful inter-laboratory confirmation of the method. The objective of this study was to explore the capability of different laboratories in the assessment of dentifrice abrasivity using a profilometry-based evaluation technique developed in our Mason laboratories. In addition, we wanted to assess the interchangeability of human and bovine specimens.


METHODS
Participating laboratories were instructed in methods associated with Radioactive Dentin Abrasivity-Profilometry Equivalent (RDA-PE) evaluation, including site visits to discuss critical elements of specimen preparation, masking, profilometry scanning, and procedures. Laboratories were likewise instructed on the requirement for demonstration of proportional linearity as a key condition for validation of the technique. Laboratories were provided with four test dentifrices, blinded for testing, with a broad range of abrasivity. In each laboratory, a calibration curve was developed for varying V8 brushing strokes (0, 4,000, and 10,000 strokes) with the ISO abrasive standard. Proportional linearity was determined as the ratio of standard abrasion mean depths created with 4,000 and 10,000 strokes (2.5 fold differences). Criteria for successful calibration within the method (established in our Mason laboratory) was set at proportional linearity = 2.5 ± 0.3. RDA-PE was compared to Radiotracer RDA for the four test dentifrices, with the latter obtained by averages from three independent Radiotracer RDA sites. Individual laboratories and their results were compared by 1) proportional linearity and 2) acquired RDA-PE values for test pastes.


RESULTS
Five sites participated in the study. One site did not pass proportional linearity objectives. Data for this site are not reported at the request of the researchers. Three of the remaining four sites reported herein tested human dentin and all three met proportional linearity objectives for human dentin. Three of four sites participated in testing bovine dentin and all three met the proportional linearity objectives for bovine dentin. RDA-PE values for test dentifrices were similar between sites. All four sites that met proportional linearity requirement successfully identified the dentifrice formulated above the industry standard 250 RDA (as RDA-PE). The profilometry method showed at least as good reproducibility and differentiation as Radiotracer assessments. It was demonstrated that human and bovine specimens could be used interchangeably.


CONCLUSIONS
The standardized RDA-PE method was reproduced in multiple laboratories in this inter-laboratory study. Evidence supports that this method is a suitable technique for ISO method 11609 Annex B.
['Schneiderman|Eva|E|', 'Colón|Ellen L|EL|', 'White|Donald J|DJ|', 'Schemehorn|Bruce|B|', 'Ganovsky|Tara|T|', 'Haider|Amir|A|', 'Garcia-Godoy|Franklin|F|', 'Morrow|Brian R|BR|', 'Srimaneepong|Viritpon|V|', 'Chumprasert|Sujin|S|']
D000818:Animals D002417:Cattle D003802:Dentifrices D003804:Dentin D006801:Humans D008422:Materials Testing D015203:Reproducibility of Results D014072:Tooth Abrasion D014099:Toothbrushing D014100:Toothpastes
abrasion profilometry radiotracer RDA