Effects of 

blend-a-med EXPERT GUMS PROTECTION 

with Stabilized Stannous Fluoride 

and Sodium Hexametaphosphate versus Sensodyne (ProNamel) on Plaque prevention and 

removal via Digital Plaque Imaging Analysis 

Bellamy P, Khera N, Day T, Barker M, Mussett A  (In submission)

Digital Plaque Image Analysis (DPIA) was used to quantify in-vivo plaque formation during use of 

blend-a-med EXPERT GUMS

PROTECTION 

with Stannous Fluoride (

SnF2

) and Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP) compared to Sensodyne ProNamel

 (NaF/KNO3).

Conclusions: 

• 

blend-a-med EXPERT GUMS PROTECTION

 reduces overnight plaque formation by a signifi cantly  greater 

degree than Sensodyne ProNamel. Plaque coverage was an average of 23,0% lower (p<0,0001) after brushing 

with 

blend-a-med EXPERT GUMS PROTECTION

 the night before compared to Sensodyne ProNamel.

•  Immediately after brushing with 

blend-a-med EXPERT GUMS PROTECTION

, subjects have 17,3% less plaque 

coverage compared to Sensodyne ProNamel. Again, this diff erence was statistically signifi cant (p=0,016).

Objective

To evaluate how well two toothpaste formulations inhibited the growth of plaque in-vivo, when used under nor-

mal twice daily brushing conditions.

Materials and Methods

•  25 healthy adults were recruited for this double blind, randomized crossover study

•  The dentifrices evaluated were:

 1. 

blend-a-med

 

EXPERT GUMS PROTECTION

 (SnF2/SHMP), containing Stannous Fluoride (1100 ppm F), 

Sodium Hexametaphosphate and Sodium fl uoride (350 ppm F)

  2. Sensodyne ProNamel (NaF/KNO3), a commercially available dentifrice containing Sodium Fluoride (1450 

ppm F) and Potassium Nitrate (KNO3).

•  Subjects used each test dentifrice along with a standard manual fl at profi le toothbrush (Oral B P35 Indicator, 

medium hardness) for a total of 17 days. 

• The DPIA plaque assessment method was used (Sagel P, White D, Kozak M). Pre-brushing (early morning) 

plaque coverage of the teeth was evaluated on days 15, 16 and 17 (to investigate overnight plaque formation).  

Plaque coverage was also assessed on the same days immediately after brushing with the test product (40 

seconds, self timed) and mid-afternoon (to evaluate plaque removal and daytime plaque formation respec-

tively).

•  On the evenings prior to assessment (days 14, 15 and 16) subjects brushed only their lingual aspect, but were 

instructed to swish the toothpaste slurry around the whole mouth.

•  Following the 17 day treatment, the subjects used the standard NaF paste for 4 days (wash-out phase) before 

moving onto the next test product.  Subjects were instructed not to use any other oral hygiene procedures for 

the duration of the 10 week trial but were otherwise free to follow normal habits (diet, lifestyle, etc).

Statistics:

For each subject, visit, day, and treatment period, the percent plaque coverage was calculated from the digital 

images.  Percent plaque coverage was averaged amongst the days to provide a single mean score for each sub-

ject, visit, and treatment period.  For each visit (pre-brush, post-brush, and PM), mean percent plaque coverage 

was analyzed separately using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for crossover studies.  The ANOVA model included 

subject, period, and treatment.  The carryover eff ect was tested and found to be not statistically signifi cant and 

was therefore removed from the model.  Statistical comparisons were two-sided with a 5% signifi cance level.

 

Results:

•  All 25 subjects completed the study.

•  The mean tooth area covered with plaque before brushing on mornings when subjects were using SnF2/SHMP 

dentifrice was 23,0% lower than when subjects were using NaF/KNO3 toothpaste (12,5% of tooth surface was 

covered with plaque, compared to 16,2%). This diff erence was statistically signifi cant (p<0,0001).

•   After brushing with SnF2/SHMP dentifrice, subjects had on average 17,3% less plaque (5,4% vs. 6,5%) compa-

red to NaF/KNO3. This diff erence was statistically signifi cant (p=0,016) and probably in part due to the over-

night plaque inhibition.

•  When measured mid-afternoon, the average amount of the tooth covered with plaque was 22,6% lower when 

subjects had brushed with SnF2/SHMP in the morning, compared to NaF/KNO3 (9,5% vs. 12,2%). Once again, 

this diff erence was statistically signifi cant (p=0,0004).

 

PERCENTAGE OF TOOTH COVERED WITH PLAQUE

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

% t

ooth ar

ea c

o

v

e

red with plaque

Pre brushing

SnF

2

/SHMP

Post brushing

PM plaque

NaF/KNO

3

  

Clinical comment

Reduction in plaque levels is regarded as one of the critical aspects for the prevention of gingivitis, and therefore helping to 

prevent any further progression of gingivitis into periodontitis.  Good plaque control via brushing and chemical inhibition is an 

important part in any daily oral hygiene regimen.  This study has shown that 

blend-a-med EXPERT GUMS PROTECTION 

is statistical signifi cantly superior in this regard compared to Sensodyne ProNamel.  Since the 

blend-a-med EXPERT GUMS 

PROTECTION

 dentifrice has also been demonstrated to provide a sensitivity benefi t in addition to its antiplaque benefi t, dental 

professionals should consider recommending it to their patients who are experiencing hypersensitivity and who have sub-optimal 

plaque control.