Talk:Tin(II) fluoride

Citation

Citation needed for: "fluoroapatite, which is more resistant to attack by acids generated by bacteria".

This is a controversial statement. Among those who oppose fluoridation, one of the chief objections to the practice is the lack of evidence supporting that statement. So, track down a good source, if you can, and cite it.

There is a little bit of data on fluorapatite's solubility in acid in this older article in the Journal of Dental Research on the action of fluoride: Abstract: http://jdr.iadrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/42/1/444 Full text: http://jdr.iadrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/42/1/444

The solubility discussion begins at the bottom of page 1 of the Full Text PDF. Some solubility data appear on page 2. Page numbers are 444-5 in Vol42 of the JDR, 1963. Note that the author does not assert or establish a correlation between enamel solubility and tooth decay rates in the population. And fluoride content of enamel is not the sole factor that determines solubility.

Mseslacker 15:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Name

Should this article perhaps be renamed Tin(II) fluoride (with "stannous fluoride" as a redirect), instead of the other way around as it apparently is now? If such a change is made, I would suggest that the name "stannous fluoride" should still be mentioned explicitly in the article, since the compound is widely known by this older name in connection with its use in toothpaste. Richwales 16:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose for consistency's sake, it should be...but isn't it far better known by this name? --Lukobe 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Toxicity

As I am not the most well written person out there, I'd appreciate it if some able minded Wiki-er would read up on the toxicity of Tin(II) fluoride, and write at least a few lines here about it. The source I would cite is as follows. http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/TI/tin_II_fluoride.html Note that this is a site for OXFORD UNIVERSITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.157.246 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll see what I can do, but there isn't much to write about. We already cite the International Chemical Safety Card, which is at least as authoritative as the Ocford MSDS. Physchim62 (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

lede - an unsourced AND unverifiable AND wesel worded statement

"It is a colorless solid used as an ingredient in toothpastes that are typically more expensive than those that use sodium fluoride." this needs imho a citation, or else removed from the article as an unverifiable blanket statement. my guess is that this sentence has creeped here from some commercial text trying to subtly suggest that the pricier product is more desireable BECAUSE it has a different composition - which is not necessarily true and such hinting is better to be avoided in an encyclopedical text. there can be many reasons for the "typically more expensive"-ness of those products, and those prices might be subject to change and without explicitly telling WHEN the comparison was made and between WHICH products (and where, since prices can geographicall differ a lot) the sentence on the whole is unverifiable. therefore i advance to delete this statement from the sentence. if you can provide a good source, with info regarding where and which products' prices were compared, you still need an additional source to show thet the result of the comarison is "typical", and when you have that, please explain why this (non-existent and virtually impossible price comparison) is relevant to the desciption of the chemicale and it's application modes. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC).

ok, reworded it to a neutral statement: "It is a colorless solid used as an ingredient in toothpastes as an alternative to sodium fluoride." 89.134.199.32 (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC).

You might replace the accusatory and arrogant tone with thoughtfulness and AGF. Jeesh. According to Abundance of elements in Earth's crust, sodium is about 20,000x more abundant in the earth's crust. Most folks with a modicum of awareness of the physical world would be aware of that general trend. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC).

My understand is that SnF₂ most stable towards calcium ions than NaF. Toothpaste contains a lot of calcium compounds (especially relative to the level of fluorides). The slow interconversion of salts gives rise to calcium fluoride. This is almost completely insoluble in water and hence is a poor source of fluoride or dental protection.--Project Osprey (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Language version?

First non-stub version, per WP:ENGVAR, was in British English [1] Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

"stannous fluoride helps to convert the calcium mineral apatite in teeth"

The link is to apatites as a family. The body of the reference is unavailable to me.

My lay understanding is that, in the absence of fluoride or chloride ions, teeth contain mostly hydroxyapatite. If someone has a better source than motivated sellers on the internet:

https://nogoo.me/search?q=hydroxyapatite%20in%20natural%20teeth&language=all

could the link please be updated to point specifically to hydroxyapatite?

2404:4404:3722:8700:6155:DFA7:FFFC:F2F3 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)