Oral care composition

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 11304888
  • Patent Number
    11,304,888
  • Date Filed
    Thursday, December 5, 2019
    4 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, April 19, 2022
    2 years ago
Abstract
An oral care composition including a base formulation, sodium bicarbonate, and nisin, wherein the oral care composition removes biofilm from a tooth surface more effectively than the base formulation with the sodium bicarbonate or the nisin alone.
Description
FIELD OF DISCLOSURE

The present invention relates to an oral care composition for at least toothpaste, mouthwash, gel, chewing gum, and lozenges.


SUMMARY

One embodiment discloses an oral care composition that aids in cleaning teeth including greater than 0.0% by weight sodium bicarbonate and greater than 0.0% by weight of nisin to more effectively remove biofilm from a tooth surface than either sodium bicarbonate or nisin alone.


Another embodiment discloses a method of treating teeth including applying an oral care composition to a tooth surface. The composition includes greater than 0.0% by weight sodium bicarbonate and greater than 0.0% by weight of nisin to more effectively remove biofilm from a tooth surface than either sodium bicarbonate or nisin alone.


Another embodiment discloses an oral care composition that aids in cleaning teeth, the oral care composition including at least 15% by weight sodium bicarbonate and at least 0.000375% by weight of nisin, wherein a ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin is at least 500 to 1 and does not exceed 200,000 to 1.


Another embodiment discloses a method of treating teeth including applying an oral care composition to a tooth surface. The composition including at least 15% by weight sodium bicarbonate and at least 0.000375% by weight of nisin, wherein a ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin is at least 500 to 1 and does not exceed 200,000 to 1.


An oral care composition including a base formulation, sodium bicarbonate, and nisin, wherein the oral care composition removes biofilm from a tooth surface more effectively than the base formulation with the sodium bicarbonate or the nisin alone.


Other aspects of the invention will become apparent by consideration of the detailed description and accompanying figures.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 graphically shows the results of Experiment 1.



FIG. 2 graphically shows the results of Experiment 2 in which sample solution numbers 10-13 include 0.0% by weight nisin and varying concentrations of sodium bicarbonate.



FIG. 3 graphically shows the results of Experiment 2 in which sample solution numbers 14-22 include varying concentrations of nisin and 0.0% by weight sodium bicarbonate.



FIG. 4 graphically shows the results of Experiment 2 in which sample solution numbers 23-32 include varying concentrations of nisin and 15.0% by weight sodium bicarbonate.



FIG. 5 graphically shows the results of Experiment 2 in which sample solution numbers 33-42 include varying concentrations of nisin and 51.0% by weight sodium bicarbonate.



FIG. 6 graphically shows the results of Experiment 2 in which sample solution numbers 43-52 include varying concentrations of nisin and 75.0% by weight sodium bicarbonate.



FIG. 7 graphically shows the results of Experiment 2 in which sample solution numbers 53-62 include varying concentrations of nisin and 90.0% by weight sodium bicarbonate.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

It is to be understood that the invention is not limited in its application to the details set forth in the following description and the drawings.


Removing and preventing biofilm formation is the key to maintaining oral health. Biofilm can consist of multiple species of bacteria excreting a slimy glue-like substance that sticks to the surface of teeth. The most efficient measure to remove biofilm is mechanical scrubbing by a toothbrush. However, it is difficult to effectively mechanically scrub hard-to-reach areas, such as interproximal or gingival pocket spaces. One embodiment of an oral composition (e.g., a toothpaste, dentifrice, gel, mouthwash, lozenges, etc.) comprises sodium bicarbonate and nisin. Together, sodium bicarbonate and nisin remove plaque effectively. Sodium bicarbonate is widely used in oral care as anti-plaque (anti-biofilm) and anti-calculus component. Nisin has been used in oral care technology as a bactericide and has been used in food industry as a preservative for its antibacterial effect. Also, there are research reports to utilize Nisin in oral care to prevent or reduce biofilm. When used together in an oral care composition, sodium bicarbonate and nisin remove plaque more effectively than either of the two components alone.


The oral care composition may optionally include surfactants, soothing or desensitizing agents, flavoring agents, sweetening agents, humectant agents, coloring agents, additional polishing or abrasive materials, additional antimicrobial agents, binders or thickening agents, fluoride, preservatives, and water.


In one aspect, the present disclosure provides an oral care composition comprising a base formulation, sodium bicarbonate, and nisin, wherein the oral care composition removes biofilm from a tooth surface more effectively than the base formulation with the sodium bicarbonate or the nisin alone. The term “base formulation” refers to a formulation that includes at least one of the oral care ingredients described herein, but does not include sodium bicarbonate or nisin. For example, the base formulation may have the same composition as the oral care composition, except that sodium bicarbonate and nisin are absent in the base formulation. Under the same testing conditions, the oral care composition as described herein can achieve higher efficacy in removing biofilm from a tooth surface than the base formulation, the base formulation with sodium bicarbonate alone, and the base formulation with nisin alone.


Moreover, the oral care compositions discussed herein may be prepared by any suitable method.


Experiment 1

Experiment 1 treated laboratory-created biofilms with different samples of the oral care solutions as noted in Table 1.


First, a Streptococcus mutans (“S mutans”) solution was cultured in a brain heart infusion (“BHI”) medium overnight at 37 degrees Celsius and under anaerobic conditions. Then, the S mutans solution was diluted with the BHI medium with 0.5% sucrose to adjust the number of bacteria to 108 cfu/ml. This step ensures that the S mutans concentration is consistent for each sample. Then, 200 μL of the resulting S mutans solution was injected into 96-well polystyrene microplates and cultured for 24 hours at 37 degrees Celsius under anaerobic conditions to form the biofilm. The biofilm in each of the wells was washed with phosphate-buffered saline (“PBS”) once. Then, the biofilms in each of the wells were exposed to respective sample solutions 1-9 listed below in Table 1 for 10 minutes, and then the exposed-biofilms were each washed with PBS three times. As shown in the table below, each of the samples has different concentrations of sodium bicarbonate and nisin. Finally, the wells of exposed-biofilm were dissolved with 200 μL 1N NaOH, and the efficacy of each solution to remove the biofilm in the respective well was measured using UV-vis spectrophotometric optical density at a wavelength of 550 nm (OD550).











TABLE 1








Concentration in Aqueous Solution















Sodium
Biofilm



Sample
Nisin
Bicarbonate
Removal



#
(% by weight)
(% by weight)
(%)















1
0.000125
0.0
5.9



2
0.001
0.0
0.2



3
0.005
0.0
9.1



4
0.01
0.0
3.2



5
0
17.0
15



6
0.000125
17.0
28.7



7
0.001
17.0
23.5



8
0.005
17.0
25.8



9
0.01
17.0
19.4









As shown in Table 1, each of the samples has specified concentrations by weight of sodium bicarbonate and nisin. When the samples were applied to the biofilms, which a reduction of biofilm resulted. The percentage of biofilm removal represents the reduction of biofilm as a result of applying the samples to the biofilm. The results from Experiment 1 are presented in graphical form in FIG. 1, which shows that samples including both sodium bicarbonate and nisin are more effective at removing biofilm than the samples with only one of sodium bicarbonate and nisin.


Experiment 1 was carried out using an aqueous solution having the concentrations reported in Table 1. In actual oral care products using the disclosed combination, the concentrations may vary according to the specific oral care product. For example, when the oral care composition is a toothpaste, the concentrations of sodium bicarbonate and nisin reported in Table 1 may be increased because the toothpaste when used by a user will be diluted by saliva to about as much as ½ to ⅕. Alternatively, when the oral care composition is a gel or mouthwash, it may not be diluted as much during use as a toothpaste so the concentrations of sodium bicarbonate and nisin may remain closer to the concentrations reported in Table 1. Regardless of the type oral care composition, it is believed that the ratios between sodium bicarbonate and nisin will be similar to those shown in the experiment. Although the invention has been described in detail with reference to certain preferred embodiments, variations and modifications exist within the scope and spirit of the invention.


Experiment 2

Experiment 2 also treated laboratory-created biofilms with different samples of the oral care solutions as noted in Tables 2-7.


The experimental set up is the same as the experimental setup for Experiment 1, except for a few differences. First, a Streptococcus mutans (“S mutans”) solution was cultured in a brain heart infusion (“BHI”) medium overnight at 37 degrees Celsius and under anaerobic conditions. Then, the S mutans solution was diluted with the BHI medium with 0.5% sucrose to adjust the number of bacteria to 108 cfu/ml. This step ensures that the S mutans concentration is consistent for each sample. Then, 200 μL of the resulting S mutans solution was injected into 96-well polystyrene microplates and cultured for 24 hours at 37 degrees Celsius under anaerobic conditions to form the biofilm. The biofilm in each of the wells was washed with deionized water (“DI”) once. Then, the sample solutions were diluted to ⅓ with DI water. This step mimics the dilution of the solution by a user's saliva, when in use. Then, the biofilms in each of the wells were exposed to respective sample solutions listed below in Tables 2-7 for 10 minutes, and then the exposed-biofilms were each washed with DI water three times. As shown in the Tables 2-7 below, each of the samples 10-62 has different concentrations of sodium bicarbonate and nisin. Finally, the wells of exposed-biofilm were dissolved with 200 μL 1N NaOH, and the efficacy of each solution to remove the biofilm in the respective well was measured using UV-vis spectrophotometric optical density at a wavelength of 550 nm (OD550).











TABLE 2








Concentration in Aqueous Solution















Sodium
Biofilm



Sample
Nisin
Bicarbonate
Removal



#
(% by weight)
(% by weight)
(%)















10
0.0
15.0
7.3



11
0.0
51.0
14.7



12
0.0
75.0
16.0



13
0.0
90.0
19.9


















TABLE 3








Concentration in Aqueous Solution















Sodium
Biofilm



Sample
Nisin
Bicarbonate
Removal



#
(% by weight)
(% by weight)
(%)















14
0.00015
0.0
1



15
0.000375
0.0
0.9



16
0.0015
0.0
−0.2



17
0.003
0.0
−0.5



18
0.015
0.0
−0.4



19
0.03
0.0
0.3



20
0.09
0.0
−0.8



21
0.15
0.0
−1.1



22
0.3
0.0
−0.4


















TABLE 4








Concentration in Aqueous Solution















Sodium
Biofilm



Sample
Nisin
Bicarbonate
Removal



#
(% by weight)
(% by weight)
(%)















23
0.0
15.0
7.3



24
0.00015
15.0
7.7



25
0.000375
15.0
13.1



26
0.0015
15.0
17.2



27
0.003
15.0
19.6



28
0.015
15.0
18.0



29
0.03
15.0
16.3



30
0.09
15.0
16.6



31
0.15
15.0
13.8



32
0.3
15.0
14.5


















TABLE 5








Concentration in Aqueous Solution















Sodium
Biofilm



Sample
Nisin
Bicarbonate
Removal



#
(% by weight)
(% by weight)
(%)















33
0.0
51.0
14.7



34
0.00015
51.0
12.5



35
0.000375
51.0
19.1



36
0.0015
51.0
19.0



37
0.003
51.0
25.3



38
0.015
51.0
23.0



39
0.03
51.0
24.2



40
0.09
51.0
24.0



41
0.15
51.0
21.6



42
0.3
51.0
19.3


















TABLE 6








Concentration in Aqueous Solution















Sodium
Biofilm



Sample
Nisin
Bicarbonate
Removal



#
(% by weight)
(% by weight)
(%)















43
0.0
75.0
16.0



44
0.00015
75.0
20.1



45
0.000375
75.0
19.4



46
0.0015
75.0
18.8



47
0.003
75.0
19.2



48
0.015
75.0
26.0



49
0.03
75.0
20.3



50
0.09
75.0
18.0



51
0.15
75.0
16.7



52
0.3
75.0
16.4


















TABLE 7








Concentration in Aqueous Solution















Sodium
Biofilm



Sample
Nisin
Bicarbonate
Removal



#
(% by weight)
(% by weight)
(%)















53
0.0
90.0
19.9



54
0.00015
90.0
19.3



55
0.000375
90.0
18.7



56
0.0015
90.0
19.8



57
0.003
90.0
24.3



58
0.015
90.0
24.2



59
0.03
90.0
20.0



60
0.09
90.0
21.4



61
0.15
90.0
20.1



62
0.3
90.0
16.5









As shown in Tables 2-7, each of the samples has specified concentrations by weight of sodium bicarbonate and nisin. When the samples were applied to the biofilms, a reduction of biofilm resulted. The percentage of biofilm removal represents the reduction of biofilm as a result of applying the samples to the biofilm. The results from Experiment 2 are presented in graphical form in FIGS. 2-7. As shown in FIGS. 4-7, the samples including both sodium bicarbonate and nisin are more effective at removing biofilm than the samples with only one of sodium bicarbonate and nisin. In particular, enhanced results may be observed when the nisin concentration ranges from 0.000375% and 0.03% by weight and the sodium bicarbonate concentration ranges from 15% to 90% by weight, when the nisin concentration ranges 0.0015% and 0.015% by weight and the sodium bicarbonate concentration ranges from 15% to 75% by weight, and when the nisin concentration ranges from 0.003% and 0.015% by weight and the sodium bicarbonate concentration ranges from 15% to 75% by weight. In one preferred embodiment, the nisin concentration may be 0.003% by weight and the sodium bicarbonate concentration may be 51% by weight.


Experiment 2 was carried out using an aqueous solution having the concentrations reported in Tables 2-7. In actual oral care products using the disclosed combination, the concentrations may vary according to the specific oral care product. Regardless of the type oral care composition, it is believed that the ratios between sodium bicarbonate and nisin will be similar to those shown in the experiment. That is, the ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin may range from a ratio of 500 to 1 (e.g., 15% by weight sodium bicarbonate to 0.03% by weight nisin) to a ratio of 200,000 to 1 (e.g., 75% by weight sodium bicarbonate to 0.000375% by weight nisin). More specifically, the ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin may range from 1000 to 1 to 25000 to 1, from 2500 to 1 to 17000 to 1, or from 3400 to 1 to 17000 to 1. In one embodiment, for example, the ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin may be 5000 to 1. In another embodiment, for example, the ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin may be 3400 to 1.


Exemplary formulations for a toothpaste are given in the tables below.














TABLE 8






Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-



paste
paste
paste
paste
paste



Formu-
Formu-
Formu-
Formu-
Formu-



lation
lation
lation
lation
lation


Element
1
2
3
4
5




















70% Sorbitol
25
25
25
25
25


Silica
10
5
3
3
3


Hydroxyethyl
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5


Cellulose







Xanthan Gum
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5


Sodium
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5


Lauryl Sulfate







Titanium
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2


Oxide







Sodium
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1


Saccharin







Methyl p-
1
1
1
1
1


hydroxy-







benzoate







Sodium
40
45
50
55
55


Bicarbonate







Nisin
0.003
0.03
0.003
0.001
0.005


Water
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance





















TABLE 9






Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-



paste
paste
paste
paste
paste



Formu-
Formu-
Formu-
Formu-
Formu-



lation
lation
lation
lation
lation


Element
6
7
8
9
10




















70% Sorbitol
10
10
10
10
10


Silica
10
7
7
5
3


Crystalline
15
15
15
15
15


cellulose







Lauryl
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5


Glucoside







Titanium
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2


Oxide







Sodium
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1


Saccharin







Methyl p-
1
1
1
1
1


hydroxybenzoate







Sodium
40
45
50
55
60


Bicarbonate







Nisin
0.003
0.05
0.015
0.001
0.003


Water
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance





















TABLE 10






Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-



paste
paste
paste
paste
paste



Formu-
Formu-
Formu-
Formu-
Formu-



lation
lation
lation
lation
lation


Element
11
12
13
14
15




















Glycerin
20
20
20
20
20


Calcium
10
10
10
5
3


Carbonate







Hydroxyethyl
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5


Cellulose







Xanthan
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7


Gum







Cocamidopropyl
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5


betaine







Sodium
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1


Saccharin







Methyl p-
1
1
1
1
1


hydroxybenzoate







Sodium
40
40
45
55
70


Bicarbonate







Nisin
0.001
0.05
0.002
0.002
0.003


Water
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance





















TABLE 11






Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-



paste
paste
paste
paste
paste



Formu-
Formu-
Formu-
Formu-
Formu-



lation
lation
lation
lation
lation


Element
16
17
18
19
20




















Glycerin
20
20
20
20
20


Silica
30
10
5
5
5


Xanthan Gum
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5


PEG-60
1
1
1
1
1


hydrogenated







castor oil







Alkyl
1
1
1
1
1


Glycoside







(C8~16)







Titanium Oxide
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2


Sodium
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1


Saccharin







Methyl p-
1
1
1
1
1


hydroxy-







benzoate







Sodium
30
45
55
60
60


Bicarbonate







Nisin
0.003
0.003
0.03
0.001
0.05


Water
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance





















TABLE 12







Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-
Tooth-




paste
paste
paste
paste




Formu-
Formu-
Formu-
Formu-




lation
lation
lation
lation



Element
21
22
23
24





















Glycerin
20
18
15
15



Calcium
15
10
5
3



Carbonate







Xanthan Gum
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9



Cocamidopropyl
1
1
1
1



betaine







Sodium
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1



Saccharin







Methyl p-
1
1
1
1



hydroxy-







benzoate







Sodium
40
45
55
60



Bicarbonate







Nisin
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.01



Water
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance









Exemplary formulations for a gel are given in the tables below.













TABLE 13






Gel
Gel
Gel
Gel



Formu-
Formu-
Formu-
Formu-



lation
lation
lation
lation


Element
1
2
3
4



















Hydroxypropylmethyl
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3


Cellulose






Glycerin
10
10
10
10


Sorbitol
5
5
5
5


Propylene glycol
4
4
4
4


Sodium Bicarbonate
45
45
50
55


Nisin
0.003
0.03
0.001
0.02


Flavor
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1


Water
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance




















TABLE 14






Gel
Gel
Gel
Gel



Formu-
Formu-
Formu-
Formu-



lation
lation
lation
lation


Element
5
6
7
8



















Xanthan Gum
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5


Glycerin
25
25
25
25


Propylene glycol
2
2
2
2


Sodium Bicarbonate
45
50
55
55


Nisin
0.005
0.05
0.0001
0.003


Flavor
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1


Water
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance




















TABLE 15






Gel
Gel
Gel
Gel



Formu-
Formu-
Formu-
Formu-



lation
lation
lation
lation


Element
9
10
11
12



















Agar
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2


Gelatin
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5


Glycerin
10
10
10
10


Propylene Glycol
2
2
2
2


Sodium Saccharin
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01


Sodium Bicarbonate
40
40
60
60


Nisin
0.003
0.04
0.003
0.04


Flavor
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1


Water
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance









Exemplary formulations for an oral tablet for a denture cleanser are given in the tables below.











TABLE 16





Element
Tablet Formulation 1
Tablet Formulation 2

















Sodium Carbonate
20
20


Sodium Perborate
10
10


Anhydrous Citric Acid
7
7


Sodium Lauryl Sulfate
5
5


Sodium Edetate
1
1


Sodium Bicarbonate
45
50


Nisin
0.002
0.001


Magnesium Stearate
11.998
6.999









Exemplary formulations for a chewable oral cleansing tablet are given in the tables below.











TABLE 17





Element
Tablet Formulation 3
Tablet Formulation 4

















Xylitol
40
40


Aspartame
0.01
0.01


Sodium Bicarbonate
45
50


Nisin
0.001
0.005


Magnesium Stearate
14.989
9.985


















TABLE 18





Element
Tablet Formulation 5
Tablet Formulation 6

















Anhydrous Citric Acid
10
10


Sodium Lauryl
1
1


Sulfoacetate




Sodium Bicarbonate
50
55


Nisin
0.005
0.01


Sorbitol
38.995
33.99









Exemplary formulations for an effervescent tablet for gargling are given in the table below.














Element
Tablet Formulation 7
Tablet Formulation 8

















Anhydrous Sodium
13
13


Sulfate




Dibasic Sodium
10
10


Phosphate




Polyethylene Glycol
3
3


Sodium
0.1
0.1


Monofluorophosphate




Sodium Bicarbonate
50
55


Nisin
0.01
0.004


Sorbitol
23.89
18.896









Exemplary formulations for a chewing gum are given in the tables below.












TABLE 19






Chewing Gum
Chewing Gum
Chewing Gum


Element
Formulation 1
Formulation 2
Formulation 3


















Gum base
20
20
20


Reduced
28
23
23


Palatinose





Sodium
45
55
55


Bicarbonate





Nisin
0.004
0.002
0.03


Xylitol
6.896
1.898
1.87


Flavor
0.1
0.1
0.1



















TABLE 20






Chewing Gum
Chewing Gum
Chewing Gum


Element
Formulation 4
Formulation 5
Formulation 6


















Gum base
25
25
20


Erythritol
10
10
10


Sodium
45
45
55


Bicarbonate





Nisin
0.001
0.02
0.005


Maltitol
12
12
12


Xylitol
7.899
7.88
2.895


Flavor
0.1
0.1
0.1









Although the invention has been described in detail with reference to certain preferred embodiments, variations and modifications exist within the scope and spirit of the invention.

Claims
  • 1. An oral care composition that aids in cleaning teeth, the oral care composition comprising: between 15% by weight and 75% by weight sodium bicarbonate and between 0.000375% by weight and 0.09% by weight of nisin, wherein a ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin is at least 500 to 1 and does not exceed 200,000 to 1.
  • 2. The oral care composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises between 51% and 75% by weight of sodium bicarbonate and between 0.000375% and 0.03% by weight of nisin.
  • 3. The oral care composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises between 15% and 51% by weight of sodium bicarbonate and between 0.000375% and 0.03% by weight of nisin.
  • 4. The oral care composition of claim 1, the composition comprises between 0.000375% and 0.03% by weight of nisin.
  • 5. The oral care composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises between 0.0015% and 0.015% by weight of nisin.
  • 6. The oral care composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises between 0.003% and 0.015% by weight of nisin.
  • 7. The oral care composition of claim 1, wherein the nisin concentration is 0.003% by weight and the sodium bicarbonate concentration is 51% by weight.
  • 8. The oral care composition of claim 1, wherein the oral care composition includes one or more of surfactants, soothing agents, desensitizing agents, flavoring agents, sweetening agents, humectant agents, coloring agents, polishing material, abrasive materials, antimicrobial agents, binders, thickening agents, fluoride, preservatives, and water.
  • 9. A method of treating teeth comprising: applying an oral care composition to a tooth surface, the composition includes between 15% by weight and 75% by weight sodium bicarbonate and between 0.000375% by weight and 0.09% by weight of nisin, wherein a ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin is at least 500 to 1 and does not exceed 200,000 to 1.
  • 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the composition comprises between 15% and 75% by weight of sodium bicarbonate and between 0.000375% and 0.05% by weight of nisin.
  • 11. The method of claim 9, wherein the composition comprises between 0.000375% and 0.03% by weight of nisin.
  • 12. An oral care composition comprising a base formulation, sodium bicarbonate, and nisin, wherein the oral care composition removes biofilm from a tooth surface more effectively than the base formulation with the sodium bicarbonate or the nisin alone, wherein the oral care compositions includes between 15% by weight and 75% by weight sodium bicarbonate and between 0.000375% by weight and 0.05% by weight of nisin, wherein the ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin is at least 500 to 1 and wherein the ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin does not exceed 200,000 to 1.
  • 13. The oral care composition of claim 12, wherein the ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin ranges from 1000 to 1 to 25000 to 1.
  • 14. The oral care composition of claim 12, wherein the ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin ranges from 2500 to 1 to 17000 to 1.
  • 15. The oral care composition of claim 12, wherein the ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin ranges from 3400 to 1 to 17000 to 1.
  • 16. The oral care composition of claim 12, wherein the ratio of sodium bicarbonate to nisin is 3400 to 1.
  • 17. The oral care composition of claim 12, wherein the oral care composition includes one or more of surfactants, soothing agents, desensitizing agents, flavoring agents, sweetening agents, humectant agents, coloring agents, polishing material, abrasive materials, antimicrobial agents, binders, thickening agents, fluoride, preservatives, and water.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/840,229, filed on Apr. 29, 2019, the entire contents of which is incorporated by reference herein.

US Referenced Citations (46)
Number Name Date Kind
3935304 Januszewski et al. Jan 1976 A
3935305 Delaney et al. Jan 1976 A
3937321 Delaney et al. Feb 1976 A
3943240 Delaney et al. Mar 1976 A
4160022 Delaney et al. Jul 1979 A
4575457 Mazarin Mar 1986 A
4603045 Smigel Jul 1986 A
4623536 Winston et al. Nov 1986 A
4690776 Smigel Sep 1987 A
4721614 Winston et al. Jan 1988 A
4812306 Cocherell et al. Mar 1989 A
4891211 Winston Jan 1990 A
5004596 Cocherell et al. Apr 1991 A
5041280 Smigel Aug 1991 A
5135910 Blackburn et al. Aug 1992 A
5217950 Blackburn et al. Jun 1993 A
5260271 Blackburn et al. Nov 1993 A
5304540 Blackburn et al. Apr 1994 A
5334582 Blackburn et al. Aug 1994 A
5376360 Domke et al. Dec 1994 A
5424060 Hauschild Jun 1995 A
5670138 Venema et al. Sep 1997 A
5686064 Gaffar et al. Nov 1997 A
5763395 Blackburn et al. Jun 1998 A
5833958 Doel et al. Nov 1998 A
5840281 Gaffar et al. Nov 1998 A
6207411 Ross et al. Mar 2001 B1
7387774 Faller et al. Jun 2008 B2
8501161 Prencipe et al. Aug 2013 B2
8652495 Porter et al. Feb 2014 B2
8900558 Joziak et al. Dec 2014 B2
9320699 Porter et al. Apr 2016 B2
9358185 Haeberlein et al. Jun 2016 B2
20040018155 Hoagland Jan 2004 A1
20050158252 Romanowski et al. Jul 2005 A1
20070053849 Doyle et al. Mar 2007 A1
20080241117 Gaffar et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080267891 Zaidel et al. Oct 2008 A1
20090053267 DePierro et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090186090 Zaidel et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090269288 Lavrova Oct 2009 A1
20120020899 Zaidel et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120301852 Xu et al. Nov 2012 A1
20150125814 Haeberlein et al. May 2015 A1
20160193124 Porter et al. Jul 2016 A1
20180116924 Prencipe et al. May 2018 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (85)
Number Date Country
65539 Nov 2008 BG
992867 Jul 1976 CA
2116225 Jun 1999 CA
2916864 May 2014 CA
1899261 May 2010 CN
101647768 Jun 2011 CN
102525856 Jul 2012 CN
102871902 Jan 2013 CN
102871903 Jan 2013 CN
103040659 Apr 2013 CN
103156788 Jun 2013 CN
103479543 Jan 2014 CN
103610610 Mar 2014 CN
103655306 Mar 2014 CN
103893038 Jul 2014 CN
104173209 Dec 2014 CN
104306232 Jan 2015 CN
104306237 Jan 2015 CN
104546535 Apr 2015 CN
104856903 Aug 2015 CN
105326656 Feb 2016 CN
105326708 Feb 2016 CN
105708783 Jun 2016 CN
105997719 Oct 2016 CN
106176378 Dec 2016 CN
106214559 Dec 2016 CN
104224627 Jan 2017 CN
106265267 Jan 2017 CN
106420552 Feb 2017 CN
106491406 Mar 2017 CN
106619399 May 2017 CN
106619424 May 2017 CN
106727152 May 2017 CN
106806304 Jun 2017 CN
106924170 Jul 2017 CN
106983681 Jul 2017 CN
107007539 Aug 2017 CN
107028796 Aug 2017 CN
107049810 Aug 2017 CN
107049876 Aug 2017 CN
107080731 Aug 2017 CN
107095838 Aug 2017 CN
107126387 Sep 2017 CN
107137297 Sep 2017 CN
107280985 Oct 2017 CN
107308077 Nov 2017 CN
106619193 Jan 2018 CN
107550766 Jan 2018 CN
107982073 May 2018 CN
107982185 May 2018 CN
108096093 Jun 2018 CN
108261370 Jul 2018 CN
108618977 Oct 2018 CN
108685716 Oct 2018 CN
110522675 Dec 2019 CN
000508 Oct 1999 EA
551369 Feb 1943 GB
1209319 Oct 1970 GB
1413642 Nov 1975 GB
1413643 Nov 1975 GB
1498537 Jan 1978 GB
H02250816 Oct 1990 JP
2561829 Dec 1996 JP
H10167939 Jun 1998 JP
H11279079 Oct 1999 JP
3195150 Aug 2001 JP
3241946 Dec 2001 JP
3667472 Jul 2005 JP
2011001352 Jan 2011 JP
20000038940 Jul 2000 KR
100321821 Jan 2002 KR
100446855 Sep 2004 KR
101544896 Aug 2015 KR
4453 Jul 2017 MD
520393 Apr 2004 NZ
121587 Dec 2007 RO
126742 Jun 2014 RO
8912399 Dec 1989 WO
9412150 Jun 1994 WO
9506455 Mar 1995 WO
9637181 Nov 1996 WO
9710801 Mar 1997 WO
2005037240 Apr 2005 WO
2017014682 Jan 2017 WO
2017069227 Apr 2017 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (16)
Entry
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2020/029363 dated Jul. 22, 2020 (15 pages).
Cunha et al., “Potential of two delivery systems for nisin topical application to dental plaque biofilms in dogs,” BMC Veterinary Research, 2018, vol. 14, Article 375, pp. 1-10.
Belizário et al., “Human Microbiomes and their Roles in Dysbiosis, Common Diseases, and Novel Therapeutic Approaches,” Frontiers in Microbiology, 2015, vol. 6, Article 1050, pp. 1-16.
Chow et al., “Host-Bacterial Symbiosis in Health and Disease,” Advances in Immunology, 2010, vol. 107, pp. 243-274.
Clemente et al., “The Impact of the Gut Microbiota on Human Health: An Integrative View,” Cell, 2012, vol. 148, pp. 1258-1270.
Do et al., “Oral Biofilms: Molecular Analysis, Challenges, and Future Prospects in Dental Diagnostics,” Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry, 2013, vol. 5, pp. 11-19.
Filoche et al., “Oral Biofilms: Emerging Concepts in Microbial Ecology,” Journal of Dental Research, 2010, vol. 89, Issue 1, pp. 8-18.
Ghassemi et al., “A Four-Week Clinical Study to Evaluate and Compare the Effectiveness of a Baking Soda Dentifrice and an Antimicrobial Dentifrice in Reducing Plaque,” The Journal of Clinical Dentistry, 2008, vol. 19, Issue 4, pp. 120-126.
Jiang et al., “Pyrosequencing Analysis of Oral Microbiota Shifting in Various Caries States in Childhood,” Microbial Ecology, 2014, vol. 67, pp. 962-969.
Marsh, “In Sickness and in Health—What Does the Oral Microbiome Mean to US? An Ecological Perspective,” Advances in Dental Research, 2018, vol. 29, Issue 1, pp. 60-65.
Pérez-Chaparro et al., “Newly Identified Pathogens Associated with Periodontitis: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Dental Research, 2014, vol. 93, Issue 9, pp. 846-858.
Relman, “The Human Microbiome: Ecosystem Resilience and Health,” Nutrition Reviews, 2012, vol. 70, pp. S2-S9.
Sartor et al., “Intestinal Microbes in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases,” The American Journal of Gastroenteroloy Supplements, 2012, vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 15-21.
Shin et al., “Antimicrobial Nisin Acts Agains Saliva Derived Multi-Species Biofilms without Cytotoxicity to Human Oral Cells,” Frontiers in Microbiology, 2015, vol. 6, Article 617, pp. 1-14.
Shin et al., “Biomedical Applications of Nisin,” Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2015, pp. 1449-1465.
Thong et al., “Enhancement of Plaque Removal by Baking Soda Toothpastes from Less Accessible Areas in the Dentition,” The Journal of Clinical Dentistry, 2011, vol. 22, Issue 5, pp. 171-178.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20200337975 A1 Oct 2020 US
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
62840229 Apr 2019 US