Cross-sectional analysis evaluates metal concentrations in children's and adult toothpastes, ensuring safety compliance.
Background Toothpastes are widely used oral care products and may contain trace and heavy metals originating from raw materials or manufacturing processes. Continuous monitoring of both toxic and essential metal content is therefore important to ensure consumer safety, particularly for products intended for children. Materials and methods Fifteen commercially available toothpaste products marketed in Türkiye were purchased and classified as children’s, adult, or herbal formulations. Samples were digested using microwave-assisted nitric acid digestion and analyzed for aluminum (Al), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), and lead (Pb) using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Metal concentrations were compared according to target group, formulation type, and country of manufacture using non-parametric statistical tests. Results Mercury and arsenic were below the detection limits in all samples. Cadmium and lead were detected at concentrations within internationally recommended safety limits, while nickel, chromium, copper, zinc, aluminum, and iron were reported at varying concentrations without direct comparison to specific regulatory threshold values due to the lack of established limits for these metals in toothpaste products. No statistically significant differences were observed between children’s and adult toothpastes or between herbal and conventional formulations ( p > 0.05). However, toothpastes manufactured in Türkiye exhibited significantly higher chromium concentrations compared to imported products ( p = 0.028). Conclusion The evaluated toothpaste products contained low levels of potentially toxic metals, with concentrations remaining within accepted safety limits. The findings suggest general compliance with international regulations; however, periodic surveillance remains important, particularly for products intended for children.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
AYYILDIZ et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: