SURFACTANT-FREE FOAMABLE ORAL CARE COMPOSITION

Abstract

A surfactant-free foamable oral care composition is provided. The oral care composition includes 0.1-10% (w/w/) of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, a surface tension of an aqueous solution of the 0.1% hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose is less than 56 mN/m. The oral care composition includes no surfactant, while can generate foams during tooth brushing.

Claims

1. A foamable oral care composition, comprising a hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, a surface tension of the hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose in an aqueous solution at a concentration of 0.1 mass % is not greater than 56 mN/m, preferably 42-56 mN/m; and a content of the hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose in the composition is 0.5-10 weight %, preferably 1-7 weight %, especially preferably 2-5 weight %, and particularly 2.5-4.0 weight %, based on the weight of the composition.

2. The oral care composition according to claim 1, comprising: (a) 10-50% (w/w/) of an abrasive, preferably 12-40% (w/w/), especially preferably 15-30% (w/w/), and particularly 18-25% (w/w/); (b) 5-50% (w/w/) of a humectant, preferably 10-45% (w/w/), especially preferably 15-40% (w/w/), and particularly 18-30% (w/w/); (c) 0.005-10.0% (w/w/) of a flavoring agent, preferably 0.1-5.0% (w/w/), and more preferably 0.5-1.0% (w/w/); and (d) 0.01-10% (w/w/) of a functional additive, preferably 0.1-5% (w/w/), and more preferably 1.0-2.0% (w/w/).

3. The oral care composition according to claim 2, wherein, the abrasive is selected from silicon dioxide, such as silica gel, silicon dioxide hydrate or precipitated silicon dioxide; aluminum oxide; insoluble phosphate, calcium carbonate or combinations thereof.

4. The oral care composition according to claim 2, wherein, the humectant is selected from glycerol, sorbitol, xylitol, polyethylene glycol or combinations thereof.

5. The oral care composition according to claim 2, wherein, the flavoring agent is selected from a perfume and/or a sweetening agent.

6. The oral care composition according to claim 2, wherein, the functional additive is selected from a coloring agent, a corrosion inhibitor, an anticaries agent, an antiplaque agent, an anticalculus agent, an anti-inflammatory agent, a deodorant, a desensitizer or combinations thereof.

7. The oral care composition according to claim 1, comprising: (a) 10-50% (w/w/) of an abrasive, preferably 12-40% (w/w/), especially preferably 15-30% (w/w/), and particularly 18-25% (w/w/); (b) 5-50% (w/w/) of a humectant, preferably 10-45% (w/w/), especially preferably 15-40% (w/w/), and particularly 18-30% (w/w/); (c) 2-20% (w/w/) of cellulose, preferably 4-16% (w/w/), especially preferably 6-12% (w/w/), and particularly 8-10% (w/w/); (d) 5-30% (w/w/) of a lactobacillus fermentation compound, preferably 8-26% (w/w/), especially preferably 12-22% (w/w/), and particularly 14-18% (w/w/); and (e) 1-12% (w/w/) of a starch, preferably 2-10% (w/w/), especially preferably 3-8% (w/w/), and particularly 4-6.0% (w/w/).

8. The oral care composition according to claim 1, comprising no surfactant, the surfactant comprises an anion surfactant, a cation surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant and a nonionic surfactant.

9. The oral care composition according to claim 1, comprising no bacteriostatic agent and no preservative.

10. The oral care composition according to claim 1, wherein, the oral care composition has a water activity of less than 0.75, preferably less than 0.65, particularly less than 0.6.

11. The oral care composition according to claim 3, wherein, the humectant is selected from glycerol, sorbitol, xylitol, polyethylene glycol or combinations thereof.

12. The oral care composition according to claim 3, wherein, the flavoring agent is selected from a perfume and/or a sweetening agent.

13. The oral care composition according to claim 3, wherein, the functional additive is selected from a coloring agent, a corrosion inhibitor, an anticaries agent, an antiplaque agent, an anticalculus agent, an anti-inflammatory agent, a deodorant, a desensitizer or combinations thereof.

14. The oral care composition according to claim 2, comprising no surfactant, the surfactant comprises an anion surfactant, a cation surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant and a nonionic surfactant.

15. The oral care composition according to claim 3, comprising no surfactant, the surfactant comprises an anion surfactant, a cation surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant and a nonionic surfactant.

16. The oral care composition according to claim 4, comprising no surfactant, the surfactant comprises an anion surfactant, a cation surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant and a nonionic surfactant.

17. The oral care composition according to claim 2, comprising no bacteriostatic agent and no preservative.

18. The oral care composition according to claim 3, comprising no bacteriostatic agent and no preservative.

19. The oral care composition according to claim 2, wherein, the oral care composition has a water activity of less than 0.75, preferably less than 0.65, particularly less than 0.6.

20. The oral care composition according to claim 3, wherein, the oral care composition has a water activity of less than 0.75, preferably less than 0.65, particularly less than 0.6.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0056] FIG. 1 shows foaming capability comparison of toothpaste.

[0057] FIG. 2 shows safety comparison of toothpaste.

[0058] FIG. 3 shows safety comparison of toothpaste.

DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

[0059] The present disclosure will be more clearly understood by reading the following embodiments. These embodiments are not intended to limit the present disclosure but are merely exemplary implementations of the present disclosure. If not specifically specified, the component content in the following embodiments is mass percent.

[0060] An oral care composition was prepared according to the following proportioning ratio:

[0061] Formula of Embodiment 1 #: 55 of sorbitol (70% sorbitol aqueous solution), 22 of dicalcium phosphate, 5.5 of glycerol, 5.5 of xylitol, 2.2 of cellulose, 2.2 of a starch, 4.6 of a lactobacillus fermentation compound, and 3.0 of HPMC(X1).

[0062] Formula of Embodiment 2 #: 52.5 of sorbitol (70% sorbitol aqueous solution), 22 of dicalcium phosphate, 8.0 of glycerol, 5.5 of xylitol, 2.2 of cellulose, 2.2 of a starch, 4.6 of a lactobacillus fermentation compound, and 3.0 of HPMC (X2).

[0063] Formula of Embodiment 3 #: 50 of sorbitol (70% sorbitol aqueous solution), 22 of dicalcium phosphate, 10.5 of glycerol, 5.5 of xylitol, 2.2 of cellulose, 2.2 of a starch, 4.6 of a lactobacillus fermentation compound, and 3.0 of HPMC (X3).

[0064] Oral care compositions were prepared according to the following proportioning ratio:

[0065] 50 of sorbitol (70% sorbitol aqueous solution), 22 of dicalcium phosphate, 10.5 of glycerol, 5.5 of xylitol, 2.2 of cellulose, 2.2 of a starch, 4.6 of a lactobacillus fermentation compound, and 3.0 of HPMC(Xn*);

[0066] note: Xn represents HPMC of different models, and n is 4, 5, 6, etc.

[0067] Surface Tension Test Method:

[0068] HPMC was prepared into 0.1% of an aqueous solution, and the surface tension of the solution was determined through a JYW-200C fully automatic interface tensiometer.

[0069] Foam Test Method:

[0070] Foaming performance of toothpaste was determined in the following mode: a section of toothpaste being 4 cm in length was squeezed onto a rough stone surface. The rough stone was wetted in advance, and a toothbrush was wetted for repeated brushing for 1 min by simulating a real toothbrushing frequency. The foaming performance of the toothpaste was observed, and was evaluated by a number of 0-3. When the composition was used as the toothpaste, the foaming performance was preferably 2-3, and the foaming performance of 0 represented foaming incapability.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Surface tension of HPMC and foaming capability of compositions HPMC X1 X3 X3 Surface tension 51.44 53.98 52.98 (mN/m) Foaming capability 3 3 3 HPMC X4 X5 X6 Surface tension 53.40 50.54 51.25 (mN/m) Foaming capability 3 3 2 HPMC X7 X8 X9 Surface tension 43.74 46.62 45.05 (mN/m) Foaming capability 2 3 3 HPMC X10 X11 X12 Surface tension 70.55 65.83 65.10 (mN/m) Foaming capability 0 0 0 HPMC X13 X14 X15 Surface tension 72.48 71.99 72.31 (mN/m) Foaming capability 0 0 0

[0071] Results were as shown in FIG. 1 and Table 1. When the surface tension of the aqueous solution of 0.1% selected HPMC was less than 56 mN/m, the toothpaste of the present disclosure had almost identical foaming effect to surfactant-containing toothpaste sold in the market.

[0072] Stability Experiment:

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Water activity Aw of three toothpaste compositions Toothpaste composition Embodiment 1# Embodiment 2# Embodiment 3# Water activity Aw 0.67 0.65 0.61

[0073] Bacteria culture medium of preservative effect challenge experiment: lecithin tween 80 nutrient agar (from Hopebio): 24.0 g of the culture medium (that is lecithin tween 80 nutrient agar) was added into a 1000 ml conical flask, was heated, boiled to a boiling state, and dissolved into 500 ml of distilled water. High-pressure sterilization was performed for 20 min at 121° C. for use.

[0074] Fungus culture medium: potato dextrose culture medium (PDA), and Bengal red agar culture medium (from Beijing Luqiao): 18.3 g of the culture medium (one of the above two culture medium, in this embodiment, the Bengal red agar culture mediumis used) was added into a 1000 ml conical flask, was dissolved in 500 ml of distilled water, was heated and boiled to a boiling state until complete dissolution, and high-pressure sterilization was performed for 15 min at 121° C. for use.

[0075] Normal saline: high-pressure sterilization was performed for 15 min at 121° C. for use.

[0076] Tested Strains: [0077] Escherichia coli, ATCC 8739 [0078] Pseudomonas aeruginosa, ATCC 9027 [0079] Staphylococcus aureus, ATCC 6538 [0080] Candida albicans, ATCC 10231 [0081] Aspergiblus niger, ATCC 16404

[0082] Experiment Method:

[0083] This experiment referred to microbial antiseptic efficacy test method of United States Pharmacopeia USP39<51>. That is, 30 g of each sample to be tested was weighed and added into a sterilized sample bottle. A quantitative mixed bacterial suspension (the above five strains) was added. An initial bacterium (Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus) adding concentration of bacteria in the sample was 10.sup.6 cfu/g. An initial bacterium adding concentration of Candida albicans and Aspergiblus niger was 10.sup.5 cfu/g. Then, sufficient and uniform mixing was performed. An opening of the sample bottle was sealed by opening sealing glue, and the sample bottle was put in an incubator about 28° C. Sampling was respectively performed at 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th days of inoculation for analysis.

[0084] Evaluation Standard:

[0085] A total bacteria number was from an initial value to a bacteria number logarithmic reduction value of not be less than 1.0 on the 7th day; the total bacteria number was from an initial value to a bacteria number logarithmic reduction value of not be less than 3.0 on the 14th day; and additionally, the bacteria number was not increased from the 14th day to the 28th day. A total number of Candida albicans and Aspergiblus niger from the initial to the 7th day, the 14th day and the 28th day was not increased.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Colonies number change with time Colonies number/(cfu .Math. g.sup.−1) Strain Number Day 0 Day 1 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28 Mixed Embodiment 1# 4.3 × 10.sup.6 3.6 × 10.sup.4  <10  <10 bacteria Embodiment 2# 4.0 × 10.sup.6 4.0 × 10.sup.4  <10  <10 Embodiment 3# 2.5 × 10.sup.6 1.4 × 10.sup.6 1.2 × 10.sup.4  <10 Mixed Embodiment 1# 3.8 × 10.sup.5 3.3 × 10.sup.4 <100  <10 fungi Embodiment 2# 2.7 × 10.sup.5 4.7 × 10.sup.4 <100  <10 Embodiment 3# 1.8 × 10.sup.5 1.7 × 10.sup.4 5.7 × 10.sup.2 <100

[0086] Samples of preservative-free systems of toothpaste compositions of the three embodiments were subjected to microbiological challenge experiments. Results showed that the compositions could pass the challenge experiments. Therefore, it could be seen that according to the present disclosure, a preservative effect could be achieved by controlling the water activity Aw to be less than 0.7.

[0087] Safety Experiment

[0088] Fish Acute Toxicity Test

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Tested toothpaste samples Number Surfactant M1 Sodium lauryl sulfate Cocoamidopropyl betaine M2 Sodium lauryl sulfate Sodium N-lauroylsarcosinate M3 Lauryl glucoside Sodium lauryol glycinate M4 Sodium lauryl sulfate M5 Sodium lauryl sulfate Disodium C12-14 pareth-2 sulfosuccinate M6 Cocamidopropyl betaine Sodium methyl cocoyl taurate M7 Sodium lauryl sulfate M8 Herbal medicine extract mixture M9 Steareth-30 M10 Sodium lauryl sulfate Embodiment 1# — Embodiment 2# — Embodiment 3# — Note: M1-M10 were toothpaste on sale in the market, “—” represented surfactant-free.

[0089] Test Method:

[0090] (1) Small fish of about 5 cm in length were selected, domesticated for a week under living conditions similar to experimental conditions, and fasted for 24 hours before the experiment.

[0091] (2) Toothpaste was diluted with pure water for 500 times in a glass fish tank. 7 healthy small fish were put into the glass fish tank. Survival conditions of the fish in a test solution were observed, and the survival time of the fish was recorded. Time counting was started when the small fish were put into the toothpaste solution, and was ended until the 7 small fish totally died. The experiment results were metered in minutes (min.), hours (h.), and days (d.).

[0092] Results were as shown in FIG. 2-3, it can be seen that the surfactant-free toothpaste of the present disclosure had higher safety.