Oral disease treatment agent

Abstract

To provide an oral disease ameliorating agent which gives a user a good use feel and has high continuous usability.SOLUTION: An oral disease ameliorating agent contains erythritol and is used for a wide range of subjects including pets such as dogs, children, and the elderly. The oral disease ameliorating agent is used by being applied in the oral cavity as a gel or the like by a finger of a user or by being applied as an aqueous solution by being jetted into the oral cavity by a spray or the like. The oral disease ameliorating agent is comfortable to touch and easy to apply for the user, safe and smooth application work can be performed therewith, and the agent has a good use feel and has high continuous usability.SELECTED DRAWING: None

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to an oral disease improving agent that is pleasant to use and highly likely to be continuously usable. [Background technology]

[0002] In recent years, the number of companion animals, including dogs and cats, has been steadily increasing. From the perspective of growing animal welfare, improving the quality of life (QOL) of these companion animals is an extremely important issue. There are various diseases that impair QOL, but oral diseases are particularly damaging.

[0003] Periodontal disease is a particularly problematic oral disease. It is particularly prevalent in dogs, with approximately 80% of all dogs over the age of three suffering from it. Bacteria in dental plaque cause swelling of the gums (gingivitis) and destruction of the periodontal tissues that support the teeth. As periodontal disease progresses, the alveolar bone (the jawbone that supports the teeth) gradually dissolves, eventually leading to tooth loss and, in severe cases, fracture of the mandible. It has also been suggested that bacteria can enter blood vessels in inflamed mucous membranes, potentially causing heart and kidney disease. Furthermore, in recent years, the increased consumption of sucrose-contaminated foods, such as human snacks, has led to an increase in dental caries (tooth decay), something that was previously uncommon in companion animals. Improving oral diseases is an essential task in improving the quality of life of companion animals. However, companion animals are unable to provide oral care on their own and are therefore left to their owners to do so. Various methods have been investigated to enable owners to comfortably provide oral care for their companion animals.

[0004] For example, the oral care cleaner described in Patent Document 1 is an instrument for removing food residues adhering to the gums. The oral care cleaner comprises a contact member that is inserted into the mouth and contacts the gums connected to the teeth, and an operating member that is held by the user's hand, and the contact member removes food residues adhering to the gums.

[0005] Furthermore, the composition for improving oral hygiene described in Patent Document 2 contains, for example, a binder microorganism such as a lactic acid bacterium or a fragment thereof, and is said to be effective in preventing and treating tartar, dental caries, and bad breath, which are causes of periodontal disease, without having a strong odor or taste.

[0006] Furthermore, this problem is not limited to companion animals, but also applies to caregivers and caregivers of babies and elderly people who are unable to brush their teeth voluntarily. [Prior art documents] [Non-patent literature]

[0007] [Patent Document 1] Patent No. 6347015 [Patent Document 2] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2017-71596 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0008] The above conventional configuration has the following problems. That is, it is difficult to say that conventional devices are comfortable for the users, such as pet owners, caregivers, and caregivers, and that they can be used continuously. The oral care and cleaning tool in Patent Document 1 is inserted into the user's mouth and placed in contact with the teeth, making it difficult to care for every corner of the teeth or between the teeth. The user also does not feel that the mouth has been cleaned reliably, and the experience of use is not satisfactory. Furthermore, although the composition for improving oral hygiene in Patent Document 2 does not have a distinctive taste or odor, it is used as an additive in foods and orally administered medicines, and is not intended for use by a user on a recipient, and is not comfortable for users to use.

[0009] The present invention has been made based on the above points, and an object of the present invention is to provide an oral disease improving agent which is easy to use and has high continual usability for the user. [Means for solving the problem]

[0010] In order to achieve the above object, the oral disease improving agent according to claim 1 of the present invention is characterized in that it contains 1% by weight to 12% by weight of erythritol, 0.1% by weight to 1% by weight of fulvic acid, and the remainder being water or water and cellulose. Furthermore, the oral disease improving agent according to claim 2 is characterized in that in the oral disease improving agent according to claim 1, erythritol is contained in an amount of 3% by weight to 10% by weight. Furthermore, the oral disease improving agent according to claim 3 is characterized in that the oral disease improving agent according to claim 1 contains 5 wt % of erythritol. The oral disease improving agent according to claim 4 is characterized in that the oral disease improving agent according to claim 1 is intended for the elderly and children. The oral disease improving agent according to claim 5 is the oral disease improving agent according to claim 1, characterized in that it is intended for pets. The oral disease improving agent according to claim 6 is 5 Improvement of oral diseases described Agent The present invention is characterized in that it is aimed at dogs. Furthermore, the oral disease improving agent according to claim 7 is the oral disease improving agent according to claim 4, characterized in that it is applied in the form of a gel in an amount of 1.5 ml to 2.0 ml once a day into the oral cavity. The oral disease improving agent according to claim 8 is the oral disease improving agent according to claim 6, characterized in that 1.5 ml to 2.0 ml is sprayed into the oral cavity once a day. [Effects of the Invention]

[0011] As described above, the oral disease improving agent according to claim 1 of the present invention contains erythritol, which provides a pleasant feeling to the user and is highly likely to be used continuously. Furthermore, the oral disease improving agent according to claim 2 contains 1% by weight to 12% by weight of erythritol in the oral disease improving agent according to claim 1, which further improves the user's experience in use and ultimately the likelihood of continued use. Furthermore, the oral disease improving agent according to claim 3 contains 3% by weight to 10% by weight of erythritol in the oral disease improving agent according to claim 1, which further improves the user's experience in use and ultimately the continued use. Furthermore, the oral disease improving agent according to claim 4 contains 5% by weight of erythritol in the oral disease improving agent according to claim 1, which further improves the user's experience in use and ultimately the likelihood of continued use. Furthermore, the oral disease improving agent according to claim 5 is an oral disease improving agent according to any one of claims 1 to 4, and contains fulvic acid, which further improves the user's usability and ultimately the likelihood of continued use. Furthermore, the oral disease improving agent according to claim 6 contains 0.1% by weight to 1% by weight of fulvic acid in the oral disease improving agent according to claim 5, which further improves the user's experience and, ultimately, the continued use of the agent. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0012] An embodiment of the present invention will now be described. The oral disease improving agent according to this embodiment contains erythritol. By applying the oral disease improving agent to the inside of the mouth, particularly to the teeth, oral diseases such as periodontal disease and dental caries are improved. The oral disease improving agent may be in the form of, for example, a gel, cream, aqueous solution, etc., and may be blended with an appropriate base within a range that does not impair the effects of the present invention. In addition to the base components, the oral disease improving agent may also contain various components acceptable for producing pharmaceuticals, quasi-drugs, and cosmetics within a range that does not impair the effects of the present invention, namely, additives such as antioxidants, preservatives, humectants, thickeners, buffers, adsorbents, solvents, emulsifiers, and stabilizers.

[0013] Erythritol used in the present invention is a tetrahydric sugar alcohol, which is a highly safe material that is naturally contained in foods such as lichens, mushrooms, fruits, etc. Erythritol can be produced by chemical synthesis or fermentation, but in most cases, it is produced by fermentation using yeast, for example, from glucose as a raw material.

[0014] Erythritol has long been known to inhibit the growth of Streptococcus mutans, a bacterium that causes dental caries (P. de Cock, K. et al. Int J Dent., 9868421. 2016). It has also been reported that erythritol inhibits the growth of various bacteria by affecting various metabolic pathways, including nucleic acid synthesis and glycolysis, in the periodontal disease bacterium Porphyromonas gingivalis (Hashino Kei. Elucidation of the mechanism by which sugar alcohols inhibit biofilm formation. Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research Research Report, 2013).

[0015] A user applies the oral disease improving agent containing erythritol to the mouth of a companion animal (dog, cat, etc.) that is unable to brush its teeth, etc., and thereby improves the oral disease of the companion animal (dog, cat, etc.). Furthermore, the results of experiments in the examples described below have shown that the agent is pleasant to the touch and easy to apply for the user, and is also comfortable for the companion animal, allowing for a safe and smooth application process.

[0016] The content of erythritol in the oral disease improving agent of the present invention is preferably 1 to 12% by weight, more preferably 3 to 10% by weight, and most preferably 5% by weight, based on the total amount of the composition. If the content is less than 1% by weight, the effect is still present but is reduced, and if the content exceeds 10% by weight, the effect is similarly maintained but the solubility is reduced, creating an undesirable situation for preparing an external preparation. If the content is less than 1% by weight, no effect is observed. However, if the amount of erythritol is more than 15% by weight, it will crystallize and will no longer be usable as an agent for improving oral diseases.

[0017] Oral diseases are a serious problem not only for companion animals (dogs, cats, etc.) but also for, for example, human babies and elderly people who are unable to brush their teeth voluntarily. Therefore, the present invention can be applied not only to companion animals (dogs, cats, etc.) but also to humans.

[0018] Furthermore, the oral disease improving agent may contain fulvic acid. Fulvic acid is a non-solid, high molecular weight organic acid that does not precipitate due to acid and is one of the humic substances produced by the decomposition of plants and other materials by soil microorganisms.It is a component that is widely distributed in soil and natural water. The results of the experiments in the examples described below show that the inclusion of fulvic acid in addition to erythritol makes the product more pleasant to the touch and easier to apply for the user, and is also more comfortable for the companion animal, allowing for safe and smooth application. The content of fulvic acid in the oral disease-improving agent of the present invention is preferably 0.1 to 1.0% by weight based on the total amount of the composition.

[0019] As described above, the present invention provides an oral disease improving agent containing erythritol or erythritol and fulvic acid, which provides an excellent user experience. That is, for the user, the oral disease improving agent is easy to apply to the user or the animal to be treated, the oral disease improving agent feels pleasant to the touch, and the object to which it is applied feels pleasant to the touch. The user or the animal to be treated does not feel uncomfortable during application, allowing for smooth application work, and the user or the animal to have reduced bad breath, which prevents the user from feeling uncomfortable. Furthermore, the user's continued use is expected due to the pleasant usability. Furthermore, erythritol and fulvic acid are ingredients that are also included in commonly available cosmetics, health foods, and general foods, making them safe and highly effective. Furthermore, it is easy to use, as it can be simply applied to the mouth, especially to the teeth.

[0020] Hereinafter, this embodiment will be specifically described with reference to an example. However, the present invention is not limited to these examples. In the following examples, the percentages (%) showing the concentrations of the reagents in the tables indicate % by weight. [Example]

[0021] [Example 1] The survey on "Owners' impressions of use and continuity" was conducted on five pet owners who visit pet salons and own pet dogs. The dogs surveyed were French bulldogs, retrievers, chihuahuas, shiba inus, and corgis, covering all breeds from small to large. In Example 1, the oral disease improving agents according to Prescription Examples 1 to 13 and Comparative Example 1 described below were made into gels, and approximately 1.5 mL to 2.0 mL was taken on the hand and applied to the oral cavity of a pet dog with the fingertips once a day. The test was carried out for one week, and the owners' (users') impressions were quantified into a usability score, and the average of the five owners' usability scores was recorded. The usability score was recorded daily. Owners evaluated the user experience based on the following seven items. (1) Do you feel like it reaches every corner of your teeth? (2) Do you feel that it penetrates between your teeth well? (3) Does the agent itself feel good to the touch? (4) Do the teeth of your pet feel comfortable after application? (5) Is the dog less likely to dislike the product? (6) Has bad breath been reduced? (7) Overall evaluation: Is the product comfortable to use and do you want to continue using it? Each of the seven items above was evaluated using the five-point scale below, and the average of the scores for the seven items above was used as the score evaluated by each user, and the average of the scores of the five users was then calculated. 4: Feels very strongly 3: I feel strongly 2: I feel it to some extent 1: I feel it a little 0: No feeling at all We also measured and recorded the time it took for the subjects to feel that their teeth were clean after applying the product. A significant difference test was performed using Student's t-test, and a significant difference was determined to be observed when P<0.05. (Prescription Example 1) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 0.5% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription example 2) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 1% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 3) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 3% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 4) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 5) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 10% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 6) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 12% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 7) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 15% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 8) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Fulvic acid 0.01% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 9) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Fulvic acid 0.05% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 10) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Fulvic acid 0.1% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 11) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Fulvic acid 0.5% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 12) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Fulvic acid 1% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 13) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Fulvic acid 3% by weight Remaining purified water

[0022] Formulation example 1 contains 0.5% by weight of erythritol. Formulation example 2 contains 1% by weight of erythritol. Formulation example 3 contains 3% by weight of erythritol. Formulation example 4 contains 5% by weight of erythritol. Formulation example 5 contains 10% by weight of erythritol. Formulation example 6 contains 12% by weight of erythritol. Formulation example 7 contains 15% by weight of erythritol. As mentioned above, if the erythritol content exceeds 15% by weight, the erythritol will crystallize and will no longer be usable as an agent for improving oral diseases. Furthermore, Formulation Example 8 contains 5% by weight of erythritol and 0.01% by weight of fulvic acid. Formulation Example 9 contains 5% by weight of erythritol and 0.05% by weight of fulvic acid. Formulation Example 10 contains 5% by weight of erythritol and 0.1% by weight of fulvic acid. Formulation Example 11 contains 5% by weight of erythritol and 0.5% by weight of fulvic acid. Formulation Example 12 contains 5% by weight of erythritol and 1% by weight of fulvic acid. Formulation Example 13 contains 5% by weight of erythritol and 3% by weight of fulvic acid.

[0023] In addition, Comparative Example 1 was prepared for comparison. (Comparative Example 1) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Remaining purified water

[0024] Comparative Example 1 does not contain erythritol or fulvic acid.

[0025] In Formulation Examples 1 to 13 and Comparative Example 1, the erythritol used was "Erythritol" manufactured by Mitsubishi Chemical Foods Corporation, the cellulose used was "Powdered Cellulose" manufactured by Sansho Co., Ltd., and the fulvic acid used was "Humicle HC" manufactured by Style and Value Japan Co., Ltd. Furthermore, the purified water used was tap water or groundwater filtered through a membrane filter.

[0026] The results shown in Tables 1 to 10 were obtained from the above Formulation Examples 1 to 13 and Comparative Example 1. Table 1 shows the usability scores for Formulation Examples 1 to 3, Table 2 shows the usability scores for Formulation Examples 4 to 7, Table 3 shows the usability scores for Formulation Examples 8 to 10, Table 4 shows the usability scores for Formulation Examples 11 to 13, and Table 5 shows the usability scores for Comparative Example 1. Table 6 shows the "time from application of the agent until teeth feel clean" for Formulation Examples 1 to 3, Table 7 shows the "time from application of the agent until teeth feel clean" for Formulation Examples 4 to 7, Table 8 shows the "time from application of the agent until teeth feel clean" for Formulation Examples 8 to 10, Table 9 shows the "time from application of the agent until teeth feel clean" for Formulation Examples 11 to 13, and Table 10 shows the "time from application of the agent until teeth feel clean" for Comparative Example 1. [Table 1] [Table 2] [Table 3] [Table 4] [Table 5] [Table 6] [Table 7] [Table 8] [Table 9] [Table 10]

[0027] If the average score for Comparative Example 1, which contained neither erythritol nor fulvic acid, was 100%, the average score for Formulation Example 1, which contained 0.5% by weight of erythritol, was 108.99%, the average score for Formulation Example 2, which contained 1% by weight of erythritol, was 285.39%, the average score for Formulation Example 3, which contained 3% by weight of erythritol, was 321.35%, the average score for Formulation Example 4, which contained 5% by weight of erythritol, was 330.34%, the average score for Formulation Example 5, which contained 10% by weight of erythritol, was 324.72%, the average score for Formulation Example 6, which contained 12% by weight of erythritol, was 221.35%, and the average score for Formulation Example 7, which contained 15% by weight of erythritol, was 105.62%. From the above, it was found that the inclusion of erythritol makes it possible to obtain an oral disease improving agent that is pleasant to use and highly usable for continuous use. Among these, the effect is high when erythritol is contained in an amount of 1 to 12% by weight, the effect is even higher when erythritol is contained in an amount of 3 to 10% by weight, and the effect is greatest when erythritol is contained in an amount of 5%.

[0028] Furthermore, assuming the average score for Comparative Example 1, which did not contain erythritol or fulvic acid, to be 100%, the average score for Formulation Example 8, which contained 5 wt% erythritol and 0.01 wt% fulvic acid, was 304.49%, the average score for Formulation Example 9, which contained 5 wt% erythritol and 0.05 wt% fulvic acid, was 369.66%, the average score for Formulation Example 10, which contained 5 wt% erythritol and 0.1 wt% fulvic acid, was 411.24%, the average score for Formulation Example 11, which contained 5 wt% erythritol and 0.5 wt% fulvic acid, was 378.65%, the average score for Formulation Example 12, which contained 5 wt% erythritol and 1 wt% fulvic acid, was 388.76%, and the average score for Formulation Example 13, which contained 5 wt% erythritol and 3 wt% fulvic acid, was 237.08%. From the above, it was found that a greater effect can be obtained by combining erythritol and fulvic acid. In particular, the effect was high when fulvic acid was contained at 0.1% by weight to 1% by weight, and among these, the effect was particularly high when fulvic acid was contained at 0.1% by weight.

[0029] In addition, the following results were obtained regarding "the time it takes for the teeth to feel clean after applying the agent." If the average time in Comparative Example 1 containing neither erythritol nor fulvic acid is taken as 100%, the average time in Formulation Example 1 containing 0.5 wt% erythritol is 106.21%, the average time in Formulation Example 2 containing 1 wt% erythritol is 77.38%, the average time in Formulation Example 3 containing 3 wt% erythritol is 74.28%, the average time in Formulation Example 4 containing 5 wt% erythritol is 71.62%, the average time in Formulation Example 5 containing 10 wt% erythritol is 77.83%, the average time in Formulation Example 6 containing 12 wt% erythritol is 76.94%, and the average time in Formulation Example 7 containing 15 wt% erythritol is 104.21%. Here too, it was found that the addition of erythritol can shorten the time, and the effect was particularly high when erythritol was added in an amount of 1 to 12% by weight, with the most effective being when erythritol was added in an amount of 5%.

[0030] Furthermore, if the average time in Comparative Example 1, which contains neither erythritol nor fulvic acid, is taken as 100%, the average time in Formulation Example 8, which contains 5 wt% erythritol and 0.01 wt% fulvic acid, is 74.94%, the average time in Formulation Example 9, which contains 5 wt% erythritol and 0.05 wt% fulvic acid, is 57.87%, the average time in Formulation Example 10, which contains 5 wt% erythritol and 0.1 wt% fulvic acid, is 49.89%, the average time in Formulation Example 11, which contains 5 wt% erythritol and 0.5 wt% fulvic acid, is 48.05%, the average time in Formulation Example 12, which contains 5 wt% erythritol and 1 wt% fulvic acid, is 48.56%, and the average time in Formulation Example 13, which contains 5 wt% erythritol and 3 wt% fulvic acid, is 84.48%. Here, a combination of erythritol and fulvic acid provides better results, and the effect is particularly high when fulvic acid is contained at 0.1% by weight to 1% by weight, and is particularly high when fulvic acid is contained at 0.5% by weight.

[0031] In this way, an oral disease improving agent containing erythritol can enhance the comfort of the user, i.e., a good feeling of use, and can also enhance the continued usability that makes the user want to continue using the oral disease improving agent in the future. Furthermore, by further including fulvic acid, the feeling of use and the possibility of continued use can be further improved.

[0032] [Example 2] With the cooperation of volunteers, we confirmed the "usability and continuity of caregivers and childcare workers." Specifically, the subjects were three female care recipients in their 80s who have difficulty brushing their teeth voluntarily in their daily lives, but whose cognitive functions are well maintained and who were confirmed in advance to be able to provide clear, spontaneous responses to the questionnaire questions, and three child care recipients: two 5-year-old girls and one boy who attend nursery school, who were confirmed in advance to be at a developmental level where they could provide clear, spontaneous responses to the questionnaire questions. The caregivers were three female caregivers from a day care center who regularly assist with tooth brushing, and the childcare workers were three mothers in their 30s for each of the above-mentioned childcare recipients. In this Example 2, the oral disease improving agents according to Prescription Examples 14 to 26 and Comparative Example 2 described below were made into gels, and approximately 1.5 mL to 2.0 mL was taken in the hand once a day and applied to the oral cavity of the care recipient or childcare recipient with the fingertips. A one-week test was conducted, and the user experience was quantified using the following evaluation sheet to create a user experience score. The average user experience scores from the three caregivers and childcare workers were recorded. The user experience scores were recorded daily. In Example 2, the scores from the users, the care recipients and childcare workers, were also recorded. The user experience of the caregivers and childcare workers was evaluated based on the following seven criteria. (1) Do you feel like it reaches every corner of your teeth? (2) Do you feel that it penetrates between your teeth well? (3) Does the agent itself feel good to the touch? (4) Do the teeth of the care recipient or childcare recipient feel comfortable after application? (5) Do those receiving care or childcare show little reluctance? (6) Has bad breath been reduced? (7) Overall evaluation: Is the product comfortable to use and do you want to continue using it? In addition, the users (those receiving care or childcare) were evaluated based on the following seven criteria for their usability. (1) Do you feel like it reaches every corner of your teeth? (2) Do you feel that it penetrates between your teeth well? (3) Does the agent itself feel good to the touch? (4) Does the tooth feel good after application? (5) Does it feel unpleasant when applied? (6) Has bad breath been reduced? (7) Overall evaluation: Is the product comfortable to use and do you want to continue using it? The criteria for quantifying the scores are the same as those in the first embodiment. The significance test was also the same as in Example 1 above. (Prescription Example 14) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 0.5% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 15) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 1% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 16) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 3% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 17) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 18) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 10% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 19) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 12% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 20) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 15% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 21) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Fulvic acid 0.01% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 22) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Fulvic acid 0.05% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 23) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Fulvic acid 0.1% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 24) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Fulvic acid 0.5% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 25) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Fulvic acid 1% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 26) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Erythritol 5% by weight Fulvic acid 3% by weight Remaining purified water

[0033] Formulation Example 14 contains 0.5% by weight of erythritol. Formulation Example 15 contains 1% by weight of erythritol. Formulation Example 16 contains 3% by weight of erythritol. Formulation Example 17 contains 5% by weight of erythritol. Formulation Example 18 contains 10% by weight of erythritol. Formulation Example 19 contains 12% by weight of erythritol. Formulation Example 20 contains 15% by weight of erythritol. As mentioned above, if the erythritol content exceeds 15% by weight, the erythritol will crystallize and will no longer be usable as an agent for improving oral diseases. Furthermore, Formulation Example 21 contains 5 wt% erythritol and 0.01 wt% fulvic acid. Formulation Example 22 contains 5 wt% erythritol and 0.05 wt% fulvic acid. Formulation Example 23 contains 5 wt% erythritol and 0.1 wt% fulvic acid. Formulation Example 24 contains 5 wt% erythritol and 0.5 wt% fulvic acid. Formulation Example 25 contains 5 wt% erythritol and 1 wt% fulvic acid. Formulation Example 26 contains 5 wt% erythritol and 3 wt% fulvic acid.

[0034] Additionally, Comparative Example 2 was prepared for comparison. (Comparative Example 2) Cellulose 1.4% by weight Remaining purified water

[0035] Comparative Example 2 does not contain erythritol or fulvic acid.

[0036] The erythritol, cellulose, fulvic acid, and purified water used in Formulation Examples 14 to 26 and Comparative Example 2 are the same as those used in Example 1 above.

[0037] The results shown in Tables 11 to 20 were obtained from the above Formulation Examples 14 to 26 and Comparative Example 2. Table 11 shows the usability scores for prescription examples 14 to 16, Table 12 shows the usability scores for prescription examples 17 to 20, Table 13 shows the usability scores for prescription examples 21 to 23, Table 14 shows the usability scores for prescription examples 24 to 26, and Table 15 shows the usability scores for comparative example 2. Table 16 shows the usability scores for users of Prescription Examples 14 to 16, Table 17 shows the usability scores for users of Prescription Examples 17 to 20, Table 18 shows the usability scores for users of Prescription Examples 21 to 23, Table 19 shows the usability scores for users of Prescription Examples 24 to 26, and Table 20 shows the usability scores for users of Comparative Example 2. [Table 11] [Table 12] [Table 13] [Table 14] [Table 15] [Table 16] [Table 17] [Table 18] [Table 19] [Table 20]

[0038] If the average score for Comparative Example 2, which does not contain erythritol or fulvic acid, is taken as 100%, the average scores for Prescription Example 14, which contains 0.5% by weight of erythritol, are 114.08% for caregivers caring for the elderly and 113.16% for caregivers caring for children. The average scores for Prescription Example 15, which contains 1% by weight of erythritol, are 381.69% for caregivers caring for the elderly and 288.16% for caregivers caring for children. The average scores for Prescription Example 16, which contains 3% by weight of erythritol, are 388.73% for caregivers caring for the elderly and 351.32% for caregivers caring for children. The average score for prescription example 17, which contained 10% by weight of erythritol, was 402.82% for caregivers caring for the elderly and 369.74% for caregivers caring for children. The average score for prescription example 18, which contained 10% by weight of erythritol, was 369.01% for caregivers caring for the elderly and 338.16% for caregivers caring for children. The average score for prescription example 19, which contained 12% by weight of erythritol, was 301.41% for caregivers caring for the elderly and 269.74% for caregivers caring for children. The average score for prescription example 20, which contained 15% by weight of erythritol, was 121.13% for caregivers caring for the elderly and 93.42% for caregivers caring for children. From the above, it was found that the inclusion of erythritol makes it possible to obtain an oral disease improving agent that is pleasant to use and highly usable for continuous use. Among them, the effect is high when erythritol is contained in an amount of 1 to 12% by weight, the effect is even higher when erythritol is contained in an amount of 3 to 10% by weight, and the effect is highest when erythritol is contained in an amount of 5% by weight.

[0039] In addition, assuming that the average score for Comparative Example 2, which did not contain erythritol or fulvic acid, was 100%, the average score for Prescription Example 21, which contained 5% by weight of erythritol and 0.01% by weight of fulvic acid, was 381.69% for caregivers caring for the elderly and 288.16% for caregivers caring for children. The average score for Prescription Example 22, which contained 5% by weight of erythritol and 0.05% by weight of fulvic acid, was 469.01% for caregivers caring for the elderly and 442.11% for caregivers caring for children. The average score for Prescription Example 23, which contained 5% by weight of erythritol and 0.1% by weight of fulvic acid, was 490.1% for caregivers caring for the elderly. The average score for prescription example 24, which contained 5% by weight of erythritol and 0.5% by weight of fulvic acid, was 490.14% for caregivers caring for the elderly and 444.74% for caregivers caring for children. The average score for prescription example 25, which contained 5% by weight of erythritol and 1% by weight of fulvic acid, was 495.77% for caregivers caring for the elderly and 438.16% for caregivers caring for children. The average score for prescription example 26, which contained 5% by weight of erythritol and 3% by weight of fulvic acid, was 271.83% for caregivers caring for the elderly and 292.11% for caregivers caring for children. From the above, it was found that combining erythritol and fulvic acid produced greater effects, and the effect was particularly high when fulvic acid was contained at 0.1% by weight to 1% by weight, and the effect was particularly high when fulvic acid was contained at 0.1% by weight.

[0040] Furthermore, from Tables 16 to 20, it was found that the sensation of the elderly and children who use the product does not change significantly depending on whether or not erythritol is contained or its content, that is, the sensation of the elderly and children who use the product does not change significantly depending on whether or not erythritol is contained or its content, that is, the sensation of the elderly and children who use the product does not change significantly depending on whether or not fulvic acid ...

[0041] [Example 3] The survey on "Owners' impressions of use and continuity" was conducted on five pet owners who visit pet salons and own pet dogs. The dogs surveyed were Chihuahuas (2), a retriever, a Shiba Inu, and a bulldog, covering all breeds from small to large. In this Example 3, the oral disease improving agents according to Formulation Examples 27 and 28, and Comparative Example 3, described below, were prepared into aqueous solutions and used as a spray, with approximately 1.5 mL to 2.0 mL being sprayed into the oral cavity of a pet dog once a day. The erythritol, fulvic acid, and purified water used in Formulation Examples 27 and 28 and Comparative Example 3 were the same as those used in Example 1. The evaluation criteria for usability are the following six items. (1) Do you feel like it reaches every corner of your teeth? (2) Do you feel that it penetrates between your teeth well? (3) Do the teeth of your pet feel comfortable after application? (4) Is the dog less likely to dislike the product? (5) Has bad breath been reduced? (6) Overall evaluation: Is the product comfortable to use and do you want to continue using it? The criteria for quantifying the scores, the method for tallying the scores, and the significance test are the same as those in the first embodiment. (Prescription Example 27) Erythritol 5% by weight Remaining purified water (Prescription Example 28) Erythritol 5% by weight Fulvic acid 0.1% by weight Remaining purified water (Comparative Example 3) Purified water only

[0042] Table 21 shows the usability scores for Formulation Example 27, Formulation Example 28, and Comparative Example 3. [Table 21]

[0043] If the score of Comparative Example 3, which contains neither erythritol nor fulvic acid, is set to 100%, Formulation Example 27, which contains 5 wt% erythritol, achieved a score of 413.51%, and Formulation Example 28, which contains 5 wt% erythritol and 0.1 wt% fulvic acid, achieved a score of 490.54%. When used as a spray, it has the same effect as the gel.

[0044] In this way, the oral disease improving agent containing erythritol can improve the feeling of use and the likelihood of continued use. Furthermore, by further including fulvic acid, the feeling of use and the possibility of continued use can be further improved. The results of Examples 1 to 3 revealed that the inclusion of erythritol makes it possible to obtain an oral disease improving agent that is pleasant to use and highly usable for continuous use. In particular, the effect was high when erythritol was contained in an amount of 1 to 12% by weight, even higher when erythritol was contained in an amount of 3 to 10% by weight, and highest when erythritol was contained in an amount of 5% by weight. Furthermore, the effect is enhanced by further including fulvic acid, and it can be said that a particularly high effect can be obtained by including 0.1 wt % to 1.0 wt % of fulvic acid. [Industrial Applicability]

[0045] The present invention relates to an agent for improving oral diseases, and in particular to an agent that is designed to be user-friendly and to increase the likelihood of continued use, and is suitable, for example, as an agent for improving oral diseases for dogs.

Claims

1. The erythritol content is 1% by weight to 12% by weight, The fulvic acid content is 0.1% by weight to 1% by weight, The balance is water or water and cellulose. An agent for improving oral diseases.

2. The oral disease improving agent according to claim 1, An oral disease improving agent characterized by containing 3% by weight to 10% by weight of erythritol.

3. The oral disease improving agent according to claim 1, An agent for improving oral diseases, characterized by containing 5% by weight of erythritol.

4. The oral disease improving agent according to claim 1, An oral disease improving agent characterized by being targeted at the elderly and children.

5. The oral disease improving agent according to claim 1, An agent for improving oral diseases, characterized in that it is intended for pets.

6. The oral disease improving agent according to claim 5, An agent for improving oral diseases, characterized by being intended for dogs.

7. The oral disease improving agent according to claim 4, An oral disease improving agent characterized in that 1.5 ml to 2.0 ml of gel is applied to the oral cavity once a day.

8. The oral disease improving agent according to claim 6, An oral disease improving agent characterized in that 1.5 ml to 2.0 ml is sprayed into the oral cavity once a day.

Images