SIMONA MARIA PAPPALARDO1, SIMONE PAOLO GUFFANTI1, GIULIA GALBUSERA2, LEONARDO CELLENO2, MARCO PIACENTINI2
1. Chimar Group S.r.l, Crema, Italy
2. Eurofins Cosmetics & Personal Care Italy S.r.l., Roma, Italy

Abstract

The efficacy tests in the field of cosmetics used in oral care are evolving more and more with the arrival of new technological resources. In order to correctly support the claims of effectiveness, it becomes essential to understand which tests are currently available and which are the most reliable. In this review, the most widespread claims in the cosmetic market are taken into account and the mainly used tests to validate them, are reported. Research has shown that existing tests exploit specific endpoints. Consequently, it seems that a gold standard does not exist, and that the choice of efficacy tests strongly depends on the type of claim, equipment and experience of the experts involved.

INTRODUCTION 
In the first part of the Review (1), the most widespread methodologies used to support oral care products’ anti-bacterial, anti-halitosis and anti-hypersensitivity were evaluated.

Indeed, oral hygiene products are cosmetics and therefore fall under the EU Cosmetic Regulation 1223/2009 (2) and the EU Claim Regulation 655/2013 (3).

In this second part, the methodologies used to support oral care products’ anti-plaque, anti-tartar and whitening claims are presented.

MATERIALS AND METHODS 
A PubMed literature search strategy including the following MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms was performed:

(“Dental Calculus”(Mesh)) AND (“Dental Plaque”(Mesh) OR “Dental Plaque Index”(Mesh));
(“Tooth Bleaching Agents”(Mesh) AND “Tooth Bleaching”(Mesh)).
 
Additional hand searching was performed for the major oral medicine journals, such as the International Journal of Dental Hygiene or the Oral Health and Preventive Dentistry.

RESULTS