Oral care composition

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 12083209
  • Patent Number
    12,083,209
  • Date Filed
    Friday, February 12, 2021
    3 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, September 10, 2024
    3 months ago
Abstract
An oral care composition including greater than 0.0% of an antimicrobial agent that is cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), a cationic surfactant, an emulsifier, and less than 0.5% by weight of a thickener, such as hydroxyethylcellulose.
Description
FIELD

The present invention relates to a liquid oral care composition such as a mouthwash or mouth spray.


SUMMARY

One embodiment discloses a liquid oral care composition including greater than 0.0% of an antimicrobial agent that is cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), a cationic surfactant, an emulsifier, and less than 0.5% by weight of a thickener, such as hydroxyethylcellulose.


Another embodiment discloses a liquid oral care composition including 0.01% by weight to 0.4% by weight cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), 0.005% by weight to 0.05% by weight PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate, 0.05% by weight to 2% by weight PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil, and less than 0.5% by weight of hydroxyethylcellulose.


Another embodiment discloses a method of treating teeth including applying a liquid oral care composition including greater than 0.0% of an antimicrobial agent that is cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), a cationic surfactant, an emulsifier, and less than 0.5% by weight of a thickener, such as hydroxyethylcellulose. In another embodiment, the cationic surfactant is PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate and the emulsifier is PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil. In another embodiment, the composition includes 0.01% by weight to 0.4% by weight CPC, 0.005% by weight to 0.05% by weight PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate, 0.05% by weight to 2% by weight PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil, and no more than 0.2% by weight hydroxyethylcellulose. In another embodiment, the composition includes 0.02% by weight to 0.1% by weight CPC, 0.005% by weight to 0.02% by weight PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate, 0.1% by weight to 0.5% by weight PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil, and no more than 0.2% by weight hydroxyethylcellulose. In another embodiment, the composition includes 0.05% by weight to 0.1% by weight CPC, 0.005% by weight to 0.02% by weight PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate, 0.1% by weight to 0.5% by weight PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil, and 0.1% by weight to 0.2% by weight hydroxyethylcellulose. In some embodiments, the composition is a mouthwash or mouth spray.







DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Dental plaque is formed by adsorption and propagation of harmful intraoral bacteria, such as Streptococcus mutans (“S mutans”), Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, and Treponema denticola and the like on the surfaces of teeth. Dental plaque is a known cause of dental caries and gingivitis or periodontitis. Therefore, it is important to remove dental plaque and to prevent adhesion of it (plaque control) for oral sanitation.


One embodiment of an oral composition (e.g., a mouthwash or a mouth spray) comprises an antimicrobial agent, a cationic surfactant, an emulsifier, and a thickener. Preferably, the antimicrobial agent is cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), the cationic surfactant is PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate, the emulsifier is PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil, and the thickener is hydroxyethylcellulose. The oral care composition may optionally include additional surfactants, soothing or desensitizing agents, flavoring agents, sweetening agents, humectant agents, coloring agents, additional antimicrobial agents, binders or thickening agents, fluoride, preservatives, and water. The oral care composition, however, does not include an anionic surfactant because the anionic molecules of the anionic surfactant reduces the efficacy of CPC.


CPC has positively charged molecules that interact with negatively charged anionic sites on the cell walls of bacteria. Positively charged CPC can also bind to a tooth surface, which is also negatively charged. CPC can bind with and remain on the tooth surface for a long term. CPC can make an antimicrobial veil on the teeth and thereby help to prevent attachment of bacteria and accumulation of biofilm. Accordingly, CPC can help prevent dental plaque and dental caries by attacking bacteria and adsorbing to the oral mucosa or the surfaces of the teeth. However, when CPC is used in a formulation, other components of the formulation can reduce the ability of CPC to act as an antimicrobial agent. First, CPC is positively charged, so other negatively charged material in a formulation (e.g., anionic molecules) can react with the positively charged CPC molecules, which reduces the activity of CPC with bacteria and tooth surfaces thereby reducing the activity of CPC as an antimicrobial agent. Second, CPC also has characteristics of a surfactant. Therefore, CPC can form a micelle with other surfactants in a formulation. The formation of a micelle may interfere with the ability of CPC to attack the bacteria thereby reduce the antimicrobial activity.


The use of the cationic surfactant and the emulsifier in a formulation with CPC increases the antimicrobial effect of CPC in attacking bacteria and preventing dental plaque and dental caries. The cationic surfactant in the formulation competes with CPC to bind to anionic molecules in the formulation. That is, the cationic molecules of the cationic surfactant bind with anionic molecules in the formulation thereby preventing CPC from binding to anionic molecules in formulation. Accordingly, the CPC is free to attack bacteria and adsorb to the oral mucosa and surfaces of teeth. In the preferred embodiment, the cationic surfactant is PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate, which is an amino acid-based cationic surfactant derived from L-arginine, DL-pyrrolidone carboxylic acid and fatty acid. In other or additional embodiments, other suitable cationic surfactant may be used. These may include one or more of quaternary ammonium salts (e.g., benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, dimethyldioctadecylammonium chloride, dtearyldimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride, stearyltrimethylammonium chloride, cetyltrimethylaminium chloride, lauryltrimethylammonium chloride), bisbiguanides (e.g., chlorhexidine chloride, chlorhexidine acetate, chlorhexidine gluconate, alexidine hydrochloride, alexidine acetate, alexidine gluconate), or N-long-chain acyl basic amino acid lower alkyl esters or the salts thereof (e.g., pyrrolidonecaboxylic acid salt of N-Lauryl L-Arginine ethyl ester, pyrrolidonecaboxylic acid salt of N-Lauryl L-Arginine methyl ester, caboxylic acid salt of N-Palmitoyl L-Lysine methyl ester, hydrochloric acid salt of N-Cocoyl L-Arginine methyl ester, or laurylpyridinium chloride).


Emulsifiers are surfactants and are typically used to help dissolution of oil (e.g., flavor oil) in water. Emulsifiers therefore form a micelle with CPC when used together in a formulation. The structure of the micelle, which is determined based on the structure of the emulsifier (i.e., surfactant), determines the level of CPC inhibition. The structure of the micelle that results from the use of a poly(oxyethylene) hydrogenated castor oil that has an average molar number of ethylene oxide units added of 35 to 100 moles has been shown to be most effective in reducing the level of CPC inhibition. Moreover, in the preferred embodiment, the emulsifier is PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil.


In addition to making the oral care composition thicker, the thickener in the formulation helps the oral care composition to stay on the gum tissue. The thickener also gives the oral care composition its moisturizing and gentle finish. In a preferred embodiment, the thickener is hydroxyethylcellulose, which is a polymer. Hydroxyethylcellulose is particularly comfortable for users with dry mouth or a generally sensitive mouth. The amount of hydroxyethylcellulose in the formulation is important because too much hydroxyethylcellulose can reduce the antimicrobial activity of CPC. It is believed that less hydroxyethylcellulose in the formulation shows a higher antibacterial effect than higher amounts of hydroxyethylcellulose. Other suitable thickeners may additionally or alternatively be used, such as nonionic polymers (e.g., methylcellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, hydroxypropylcellulose, crystsalline cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, polyvinylpyrroridone) or cationic polymers (e.g., cationic guar gum derivatives and cationized xanthan gum).


The CPC is greater than 0.0% by weight, and in some embodiments, the CPC may measure between 0.01% and 0.4% by weight. In some embodiment, the CPC measures 0.02% by weight to 0.1% by weight. In some embodiments, the CPC measures 0.06% by weight to 0.1% by weight. In some embodiments, for example, the CPC may measure 0.05% by weight, 0.075% by weight, or 0.1% by weight. In some embodiments, the PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate measures 0.005% by weight to 0.05% by weight. In some embodiments, the PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate measures 0.005% by weight to 0.02% by weight. In some embodiments, the PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate measures 0.008% by weight to 0.012% by weight. In some embodiments, for example, the PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate may measure 0.005% by weight, 0.01% by weight, or 0.02% by weight. In some embodiments, the PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil measures 0.05% by weight to 2% by weight. In some embodiments, the PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil measures 0.1% by weight to 0.5% by weight. In some embodiments, the PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil measures 0.12% by weight to 0.2% by weight. In some embodiments, for example, the PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil may measure 0.1% by weight, 0.15% by weight, 0.2% by weight, 0.3% by weight, or 0.5% by weight. In some embodiments, the hydroxyethylcellulose may be less than 0.5% by weight. In some embodiments, the hydroxyethylcellulose may be not more than 0.3% by weight. In some embodiments, the hydroxyethylcellulose may be not more than 0.2% by weight. In some embodiments, for example, the hydroxyethylcellulose may measure 0.1% by weight or 0.2 by weight.


In one embodiment, the CPC may measure 0.01% by weight to 0.4% by weight, the PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate measures 0.005% by weight to 0.05% by weight, the PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil measures 0.05% by weight to 2% by weight, and the hydroxyethylcellulose measures not more than 0.3% by weight. In another embodiment, the CPC measures 0.02% by weight to 0.1% by weight, the PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate measures 0.005% by weight to 0.02% by weight, the PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil measures 0.1% by weight to 0.5% by weight, and the hydroxyethylcellulose measures not more than 0.2% by weight. In another embodiment, the CPC measures 0.06% by weight to 0.1% by weight, the PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate measures 0.008% by weight to 0.012% by weight, the PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil measures 0.12% by weight to 0.2% by weight, and the hydroxyethylcellulose measures not more than 0.2% by weight.


The oral care compositions discussed herein may be prepared by any suitable method.


The results of the following experiments show an antibacterial effect and usability of the various formulations. For each experiment, the antibacterial effect is tested using a first base having an array of wells and a second base having an array of hydroxyapatite coated pegs. In this experiment, the first base included 96 wells and the second base included 96 pegs. Each of the hydroxyapatite coated pegs is positioned within a single well. First, the hydroxyapatite coated pegs are soaked in sterilized saliva for one hour to initiate acquired salivary pellicle formation. Then the hydroxyapatite coated pegs are washed with deionized water for one minute. Thereafter six of the hydroxyapatite coated pegs are soaked in each test sample (disclosed in the tables below) for two minutes. The hydroxyapatite coated pegs are again washed with deionized water for one minute, three times. Then S mutans in a brain heart infusion medium (BD) having 5% sucrose is applied to the wells and cultured for 24 hours in aerobic condition at 37.0° C. Finally, each biofilm is dissolved with 200 μL 1N NaOH. The amount of S mutans adsorbed on the hydroxyapatite coated of each peg is measured using UV-vis spectrophotometric optical density at a wavelength of 550 nm (OD550). The OD measurement is converted into a number representing the amount of S mutans in the remaining biofilm on the respective peg. Thereafter, an average amount of S mutans in the remaining biofilm after being treated with each sample was determined by taking an average of the data points for each of the six pegs used for each sample.


Also, the usability is tested for taste (e.g., bitterness) and texture (e.g., thickness) to evaluate usability. In particular, each of the test samples was subjected to an organoleptic test administered by trained scientists in a blind trial.


Experiment 1

Experiment 1 used the tests above to determine the antibacterial efficacy and usability of two emulsifiers. All concentrations are measured in percent by weight. In particular, Experiment 1 tested whether PEG-40 hydrogenated castor oil or PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil has better antibacterial effect and usability. As shown in Table 1, below, Sample 2 including PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil had a greater antimicrobial effect than PEG-40 hydrogenated castor oil because less bacteria resulted. The taste for both was favorable.













TABLE 1









Sample




Sample 1
2




















CPC
0.075
0.075



PEG-40 hydrogenated
0.15
0



castor oil





PEG-60 hydrogenated
0
0.15



castor oil





PCA ethyl cocoyl
0.01
0.01



arginate





Hydroxyethylcellulose
0.2
0.2



S mutans in the
5.23 × 108
3.18 × 108



remaining biofilm on





the peg (Number of





bacteria calculated





from the OD)





Taste
Good
Good










Experiment 2

Experiment 2 used the tests above to determine the antibacterial efficacy and usability of different concentrations of PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate. All concentrations are measured in percent by weight. As shown in Table 2, below, Sample 4 including 0.005% PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate had a greater antimicrobial effect than the samples having other concentrations because less bacteria resulted. Samples 5-8 including 0.01%, 0.02%, 0.05%, and 0.1% PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate, respectively, had a greater antimicrobial effect than Sample 3 having 0.0025% PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate because less bacteria resulted. Sample 8 having 0.1% PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate is not usable, however, because it has a bad or bitter taste.















TABLE 2






Sample 3
Sample 4
Sample 5
Sample 6
Sample 7
Sample 8





















CPC
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075


PEG-60 hydrogenated
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15


castor oil








PCA ethyl cocoyl
0.0025
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.1


arginate








Hydroxyethylcellulose
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2


S mutans in the
4.063 × 108
2.88 × 108
3.18 × 108
3.18 × 108
3.18 × 108
3.18 × 108


remaining biofilm on








the peg (Number of








bacteria calculated








from the OD)








Taste
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Bad (bitter)









Experiment 3

Experiment 3 used the tests above to determine the antibacterial efficacy and usability of different concentrations of hydroxyethylcellulose. All concentrations are measured in percent by weight. As shown in Table 3, below, Sample 10 having a greater amount of hydroxyethylcellulose had a lesser antimicrobial effect than Sample 9 having less hydroxyethylcellulose. Also, Sample 10 was too thick and therefore not conducive for being used as a liquid oral composition.













TABLE 3








Sample 9
Sample 10




















CPC
0.075
0.075



PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil
0.15
0.15



PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate
0.05
0.05



Hydroxyethylcellulose
0.2
0.5



S mutans in the remaining
2.88 × 108
4.34 × 108



biofilm on the peg (Number of





bacteria calculated from the OD)





Taste
Good
Bad (too thick)










Exemplary combinations of CPC, PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate, PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil, and hydroxyethylcellulose in a formulation for an oral composition are given in the table below.













TABLE 4






Combina
Combina-
Combina
Combina-



tion 1
tion 2
tion 3
tion 4







Cetylpyridinium chloride
0.05
0.05
0.05 
0.075


(CPC)






PEG-60 hydrogenated
0.15
0.2 
0.3 
0.1 


castor oil






PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.02 


Hydroxyethylcellulose
0.2 
0.1 
0.1 
0.1 




















TABLE 5






Combina
Combina-
Combina-
Combina-



tion 5
tion 6
tion 7
tion 8







Cetylpyridinium chloride
0.075
0.075
0.1 
0.1 


(CPC)






PEG-60 hydrogenated
0.15 
0.2 
0.15
0.5 


castor oil






PCA ethyl cocoyl
0.01 
0.01 
0.01
0.02


arginate






Hydroxyethylcellulose
0.2 
0.2 
0.2 
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. A liquid oral composition comprising: 0.01% by weight to 0.4% by weight of an antimicrobial agent that is cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC);0.005% by weight to 0.05% by weight of a cationic surfactant that is 2-pyrrolidone-5-carboxylic acid (PCA) ethyl cocoyl arginate;0.05% by weight to 2% by weight of an emulsifier that is a poly(oxyethylene) hydrogenated castor oil that has an average molar number of ethylene oxide units added of 35 to 100 moles; and0.1% by weight to 0.3% by weight of a thickener that is a non-ionic polymer.
  • 2. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition includes 0.02% by weight to 0.1% by weight CPC.
  • 3. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition includes 0.005% by weight to 0.02% by weight PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate.
  • 4. The composition of claim 1, wherein the emulsifier is PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil.
  • 5. The composition of claim 4, wherein the composition includes 0.1% by weight to 0.5% by weight PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil.
  • 6. The composition of claim 1, wherein the thickener is hydroxyethylcellulose.
  • 7. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition includes one or more additional surfactants, soothing agents, desensitizing agents, flavoring agents, sweetening agents, humectant agents, coloring agents, antimicrobial agents, binders, thickening agents, fluoride, preservatives, and water.
  • 8. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition does not include an anionic surfactant.
  • 9. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is a mouthwash or mouth spray.
  • 10. The composition of claim 1, wherein, the emulsifier is PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil, and the thickener is hydroxyethylcellulose, and wherein the composition includes 0.05% by weight to 0.1% by weight CPC, 0.005% by weight to 0.02% by weight PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate, 0.1% by weight to 0.5% by weight PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil, and 0.1% by weight to 0.2% by weight hydroxyethylcellulose.
  • 11. A liquid oral composition comprising: 0.01% by weight to 0.4% by weight cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC);0.005% by weight to 0.05% by weight 2-pyrrolidone-5-carboxylic acid (PCA) ethyl cocoyl arginate;0.05% by weight to 2% by weight PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil; and0.1% by weight to 0.3% by weight of hydroxyethylcellulose.
  • 12. The composition of claim 11, wherein the composition includes 0.02% by weight to 0.1% by weight CPC, 0.005% by weight to 0.02% by weight PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate, and 0.1% by weight to 0.5% by weight PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil.
  • 13. The composition of claim 11, wherein the composition includes 0.05% by weight to 0.1% by weight CPC, 0.005% by weight to 0.02% by weight PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate, 0.1% by weight to 0.5% by weight PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil, and 0.1% by weight to 0.2% by weight hydroxyethylcellulose.
  • 14. The composition of claim 11, wherein the composition includes one or more additional surfactants, soothing agents, desensitizing agents, flavoring agents, sweetening agents, humectant agents, coloring agents, antimicrobial agents, binders, thickening agents, fluoride, preservatives, and water.
  • 15. The composition of claim 11, wherein the composition does not include an anionic surfactant.
  • 16. The composition of claim 11, wherein the composition is a mouthwash or mouth spray.
  • 17. A method of treating teeth comprising: applying a liquid oral composition to an oral cavity, the liquid oral composition including 0.01% by weight to 0.4% by weight of an antimicrobial agent that is cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC); 0.005% by weight to 0.05% by weight of a cationic surfactant that is 2-pyrrolidone-5-carboxylic acid (PCA) ethyl cocoyl arginate;0.05% by weight to 2% by weight of an emulsifier that is a poly(oxyethylene) hydrogenated castor oil that has an average molar number of ethylene oxide units added of 35 to 100 moles; and0.1% by weight to 0.3% by weight of a thickener that is a non-ionic polymer.
  • 18. The method of claim 17, wherein the emulsifier is PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil, and the thickener is hydroxyethylcellulose, and wherein the composition includes 0.05% by weight to 0.1% by weight CPC, 0.005% by weight to 0.02% by weight PCA ethyl cocoyl arginate, 0.1% by weight to 0.5% by weight PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil, and 0.1% by weight to 0.2% by weight hydroxyethylcellulose.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/978,098, filed Feb. 18, 2020, which is incorporated by reference.

US Referenced Citations (85)
Number Name Date Kind
4233288 Cornell Nov 1980 A
4945087 Talwar et al. Jul 1990 A
5266306 Ohtsuki et al. Nov 1993 A
5496558 Napolitano et al. Mar 1996 A
5541165 Turgeon Jul 1996 A
5560906 Scodari et al. Oct 1996 A
5658554 Fisher et al. Aug 1997 A
6066345 de Cock May 2000 A
6117417 Wicks et al. Sep 2000 A
6159459 Hunter et al. Dec 2000 A
6177064 de Troostembergh et al. Jan 2001 B1
6355229 Adamy Mar 2002 B1
6471948 Adamy et al. Oct 2002 B1
6579513 Tashjian et al. Jun 2003 B1
6656920 Fox et al. Dec 2003 B2
6706781 Rajaiah et al. Mar 2004 B2
6828308 Mastradonato et al. Dec 2004 B2
7198779 Pinol et al. Apr 2007 B2
7501452 Troha et al. Mar 2009 B2
7879877 Nagamoto et al. Feb 2011 B2
7910089 Uotani et al. Mar 2011 B2
8075924 Loewy et al. Dec 2011 B2
8221724 Hughes et al. Jul 2012 B2
8287842 Katou et al. Oct 2012 B2
8367650 Desjonqueres Feb 2013 B2
8444958 Kamasaka et al. May 2013 B2
8506937 Kho et al. Aug 2013 B2
8540970 Rodriguez-Vilaboa Sep 2013 B2
8658139 Cutler Feb 2014 B1
8858920 Robinson et al. Oct 2014 B2
9044466 Cohen et al. Jun 2015 B2
9138428 Cohen et al. Sep 2015 B2
9149454 Cooper et al. Oct 2015 B2
9192565 Vogt et al. Nov 2015 B2
9198844 Brisley Dec 2015 B2
9241885 Roberge et al. Jan 2016 B2
20020168334 Jacob et al. Nov 2002 A1
20030232858 Barker et al. Dec 2003 A1
20040170576 Grainger et al. Sep 2004 A1
20050100601 Capps May 2005 A1
20050244346 Nakao et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050250821 Sewalt et al. Nov 2005 A1
20060094643 Svirkin et al. May 2006 A1
20060134011 Shanahan Jun 2006 A1
20060134020 Robinson et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060204551 Manley et al. Sep 2006 A1
20070031561 Lakkis et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070274929 Alexander et al. Jul 2007 A1
20080118446 Jablow May 2008 A1
20080247972 Conceicao Oct 2008 A1
20080317703 Kawa et al. Dec 2008 A1
20090068122 Pilch et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090081294 Gin et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090104128 Haley Apr 2009 A1
20090252690 Behan et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090253804 Marcy et al. Oct 2009 A1
20100022471 Hanifl et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100098791 Rodriguez-Vilaboa Apr 2010 A1
20100216830 Iyoha et al. Aug 2010 A1
20110014136 Kohli et al. Jan 2011 A1
20110020417 Takeyama et al. Jan 2011 A1
20110104080 Salloum et al. May 2011 A1
20110104081 Scott et al. May 2011 A1
20110171342 Phillips, III et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110189110 Kohli et al. Aug 2011 A1
20120003162 Mordas et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120003163 Mordas et al. Jan 2012 A1
20130236400 Lewus et al. Sep 2013 A1
20130251772 Chopra et al. Sep 2013 A1
20130272971 Pimenta et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130295041 Kawa et al. Nov 2013 A1
20130344011 Ramji et al. Dec 2013 A1
20130344120 Scott et al. Dec 2013 A1
20140099347 Prencipe Apr 2014 A1
20140155457 Nho et al. Jun 2014 A1
20140187629 Walker et al. Jul 2014 A1
20140271497 Morgan Sep 2014 A1
20140286880 Vogt et al. Sep 2014 A1
20150030547 Liao et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150231060 Okay Aug 2015 A1
20150320701 Shigeki Nov 2015 A1
20150335549 Patel et al. Nov 2015 A1
20150366794 Cooper et al. Dec 2015 A1
20160008250 Cohen et al. Jan 2016 A1
20160374352 Modak et al. Dec 2016 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (102)
Number Date Country
101778618 Jul 2010 CN
101780016 Jul 2010 CN
101999990 Apr 2011 CN
102639100 Aug 2012 CN
103154726 Jun 2013 CN
103385821 Nov 2013 CN
001191 Dec 2000 EA
0413427 Feb 1991 EP
2100590 Oct 2017 EP
2348370 Oct 2000 GB
2354709 Apr 2001 GB
H01153620 Jun 1989 JP
H01246214 Oct 1989 JP
H0259513 Feb 1990 JP
H02169514 Jun 1990 JP
H03151317 Jun 1991 JP
H04173728 Jun 1992 JP
H04202121 Jul 1992 JP
H06239723 Aug 1994 JP
H0725734 Jan 1995 JP
H0725735 Jan 1995 JP
H07133222 May 1995 JP
H0812542 Jan 1996 JP
H0848622 Feb 1996 JP
H0825863 Mar 1996 JP
H08217653 Aug 1996 JP
H08259444 Oct 1996 JP
H08268854 Oct 1996 JP
H08268855 Oct 1996 JP
2603465 Apr 1997 JP
H0995457 Apr 1997 JP
H1112142 Jan 1999 JP
H1112168 Jan 1999 JP
H1149625 Feb 1999 JP
H1179961 Mar 1999 JP
H11116452 Apr 1999 JP
H11209254 Aug 1999 JP
2000129299 May 2000 JP
2001072562 Mar 2001 JP
2001247446 Sep 2001 JP
2001342500 Dec 2001 JP
2002370956 Dec 2002 JP
2003034619 Feb 2003 JP
2003113059 Apr 2003 JP
2006016309 Jan 2006 JP
2006151876 Jun 2006 JP
2006306768 Nov 2006 JP
2007008843 Jan 2007 JP
2007084471 Apr 2007 JP
2008120753 May 2008 JP
2008143870 Jun 2008 JP
2008156288 Jul 2008 JP
2009062285 Mar 2009 JP
2009107989 May 2009 JP
2010143843 Jul 2010 JP
2011073970 Apr 2011 JP
2011073996 Apr 2011 JP
2011132169 Jul 2011 JP
2011140454 Jul 2011 JP
2011148706 Aug 2011 JP
2011153138 Aug 2011 JP
2011173873 Sep 2011 JP
2012012303 Jan 2012 JP
2012111732 Jun 2012 JP
2012121833 Jun 2012 JP
2012136504 Jul 2012 JP
2012158580 Aug 2012 JP
2012201632 Oct 2012 JP
2012214402 Nov 2012 JP
2013035760 Feb 2013 JP
20000060197 Oct 2000 KR
20040081936 Sep 2004 KR
20080049177 Jun 2008 KR
20110074232 Jun 2011 KR
20130107397 Oct 2013 KR
2013007035 Sep 2013 MX
2009114589 Dec 2010 RU
2432149 Oct 2011 RU
2011117012 Jan 2013 RU
2486891 Jul 2013 RU
910333 Apr 2003 SI
WO8907932 Sep 1989 WO
WO9311754 Jun 1993 WO
WO9418939 Sep 1994 WO
WO02080946 Oct 2002 WO
WO03002056 Jan 2003 WO
WO2004071475 Aug 2004 WO
WO2005039518 May 2005 WO
WO2007009879 Jan 2007 WO
WO2007066497 Jun 2007 WO
WO2007134335 Nov 2007 WO
WO2008013740 Jan 2008 WO
WO2009032406 Mar 2009 WO
WO2009098531 Aug 2009 WO
WO2009106963 Sep 2009 WO
WO2009117644 Sep 2009 WO
WO2009135867 Nov 2009 WO
WO2010121081 Oct 2010 WO
WO2012021419 Feb 2012 WO
WO2013062424 May 2013 WO
WO2013096427 Jun 2013 WO
WO2014165226 Oct 2014 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (7)
Entry
Takahashi et al., “Feasibility of Emotion Recognition from Breath Gas Information”, Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics Jul. 2-5, 2008, Xi'an, China. (Year: 2008).
Ialenti et al., “Hyaluronic acid inhibits polycation induced cellular responses,” Mediators of Inflammation, 1994, vol. 3, Issue 4, pp. 287-289.
Jia et al., “New Formulation of Drug Controlled Release,” Chemical Industry Press, 2005, pp. 242-244 (6 pages including translation).
Rölla et al., “Experiments with a toothpaste containing polydimethylsiloxan/triclosan,” Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research, 1993, vol. 101, No. 3, pp. 130-132.
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2021/017924 dated Apr. 26, 2021 (15 pages).
Database GNPD Mintel; Nov. 28, 2018, “Regular Mouthwash”, XP093122935, Database accession No. 6166865 (3 pages).
European Patent Office Supplementary Search Report for Application No. 21756589 dated Feb. 12, 2024 (11 pages).
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20210251870 A1 Aug 2021 US
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
62978098 Feb 2020 US