An initial superficial examination of the consumer oral health industry might conclude that very little has changed over the previous two decades. Dental anatomy, the development of the dentition, the potential diseases and conditions which can be influenced by brushing or rinsing with oral products are constant (Cummings, 1997). Similarly, the basic ingredients, the product development strategies and the production technologies are also relatively unchanged. However, this is extremely misleading since today oral health care is an extremely dynamic and competitively aggressive, fast-moving consumer goods category of products. Some of the top beauty cosmetology colleges in Maharashtra are investing in research that may lead to the development of more advanced dental hygiene products.
Today, the oral care industry is a truly global concern, dominated essentially by perhaps six major multinational corporations with others following their lead. Their research, product development and formulations are often centrally developed and standardised to control costs with only relatively minor regional adaptations permitted. This provides the necessary flexibility to meet the ever- changing demands of the market where innovation and change in the category are generally driven by providing products which meet the consumers’ perceived needs.
Thus, a single company may have to manufacture more than twenty different formulations for a single marketplace, e.g. seven products with two or three formula variations (colour, flavour, etc.), for each product. Packaging choice only serves to increase further the manufacturing complexities. Let us further explore the importance of dental hygiene:
Physiology of the Teeth
However, by the very nature of the cleaning effect which toothpaste can deliver, secondary benefits upon oral health can also be achieved and demonstrated. This has grown to such an extent that a ‘simple’ cleaning preparation with no other therapeutic benefits is rarely found in the marketplace today. Thus, the formulation chemist has to consider not only the quality and consumer preferences of the product, but also the trends in dental research such that new active ingredients may be incorporated to give additional therapeutic benefits. It is probably for this reason that the 1993 amendment requires manufacturers to be able to satisfactorily substantiate all advertising claims that are made. However, it has not as yet appeared to have an impact on a highly competitive market.
Toothpaste Manufacture & Ingredients
Requirements of a Toothpaste/Dentifrice
The major requirements of oral preparations, especially toothpastes, have been summarised on many occasions in the past. For a toothpaste, these requirements were:
1) When used properly, with an efficient toothbrush, it should clean the teeth sufficiently, that is, remove food debris, plaque and stains.
2) It ought to provide a refreshing, clean feeling in the mouth.
3) Its cost should be such as to encourage regular and frequent use by all.
4) It should conform to the EC Cosmetics Directive in that it is ‘not liable to cause damage to human health when applied under normal usage conditions’.
5) It should be capable of being packed economically and should be stable in storage during its commercial shelf-life.
6) It should conform to accepted standards in terms of its abrasivity to enamel and dentine.
To accomplish this, it is essential to maintain a high solid suspension in a consistent viscous form, necessitating the addition of gelling agents or thickening polymers. To prevent it from drying out it also becomes necessary to add humectants to the system. Finally, colours (if desired), and preservatives (if necessary), are also added, creating a complex matrix of ingredients which can be classified as a ‘simple’ cosmetic toothpaste, i.e.
- Polishing and Cleaning agents (abrasives)
- Surfactants
- Humectants
- Binding (gelling) agents
- Sweetener
- Flavouring agent
- Other ingredients (colours, preservatives)
Raw Materials Used in Toothpastes
Polishing and Cleaning Agents (Abrasives)
(a) Dental grade silicas (SiO2)n: The relatively recent introduction, during the 1970s, of precipitated or amorphous silica abrasive, has added a new dimension to formulation of dental creams. In a relatively short period of time silica has generally become the abrasive of choice because it offers great flexibility to the formulator. Varying the particle size can alter the finished product abrasiveness.
(b) Dicalcium Phosphate Dihydrate (DCPD): DCPD is one of the most commonly used dental cream abrasives, perhaps because it gives good flavour stability. It is normally white in colour and gives toothpaste which generally does not require additional whitening agents. The main drawback is that it is only fully compatible with sodium monofluorophosphate as the fluoride source because of the presence of free calcium ions. Formulating with other therapeutic fluoride sources does not appear to have been successful. The abrasives are usually formulated at concentrations between 40% and 50% to give relatively dense toothpaste.
(c) Sodium Bicarbonate: It has a unique ‘salty’ mouth-feel that tends to polarise consumers, many finding it attractive possibly due to its heritage as a cleaner/deodoriser. It is a very mild abrasive, usually used at a 5-30% level, in combination with other abrasives such as silica or calcium carbonate to achieve the required cleaning action. It is used as the sole abrasive agent in some products, but the high formula level needed to obtain cleaning (50-70%) does give rise to a negative taste which may be objectionable.
(d) Hydrated Alumina: Al2O3 • 3H2O or Al(OH)3 It is relatively inert, cost-effective, and available as a white amorphous solid. It has good compatibility with sodium monofluorophosphate and other ingredients added to give a therapeutic benefit The abrasive is usually formulated at levels between 40% and 50% to give a relatively dense paste.
(e) Other Abrasives: Insoluble sodium metaphosphate (IMP) (NaPO3)x, is available as a free-flowing white powder, with moderate abrasiveness and good compatibility with flavour oils, sodium monofluorophosphate and ionic fluoride sources (stannous and sodium fluorides). Although extensively used in the past, it is now only used in extremely limited amounts. Calcium pyrophosphate (CPP), Ca2P2O7, was the original abrasive purposely developed for its compatibility with stannous fluoride to give the first commercially available therapeutic dentifrice containing fluoride (American Dental Association, Council on Dental Therapeutics, 1960). Again, the history is similar to IMP in that it is no longer used, having been superseded by silica.
Conclusion
These are some of the key components of dental hygiene. Professionals interested in developing futuristic dental care products can definitely consider pursuing B.Sc in Cosmetic Science. This program is designed to provide the right skills and knowledge about researching and developing dental hygiene products. There is a bright career in the dental care industry as our smile plays a major role in your personality and your self-confidence!