Лаурилсульфат натрия

Most toothpastes foam for one reason: SLS is in the formula. Consumers learned to read foam as evidence of cleaning. That's a learned expectation, not chemistry. SLS is added for the sensation of cleanliness, not for cleanliness itself.

What It Is and Why It's There

Sodium lauryl sulfate (INCI: Sodium Lauryl Sulfate) is an anionic surfactant — a salt of lauryl alcohol and sulfuric acid, typically derived from coconut or palm oil.

In toothpaste, it serves three technical roles:

• Foaming. Generates the thick lather consumers associate with efficacy.
• Emulsification. Keeps the water and oil phases of the paste uniformly mixed.
• Detergency. Lowers surface tension and lifts oily residues from tooth surfaces.

Typical concentrations run 0.5–2%. SLS is inexpensive, well-understood in manufacturing, and easy to work with. That's why it appears in the majority of mass-market formulas.

How the Cleaning Mechanism Works

SLS is an anionic surfactant with a hydrophobic C12 tail and a hydrophilic sulfate head group. In water, these molecules self-assemble into micelles — spherical structures with tails pointing inward and heads facing out.

Micelles encapsulate fat-soluble particles: food residues, bacterial film components, salivary lipids. They carry the debris into solution and rinse away.

The cleaning mechanism works. The question is not whether SLS cleans teeth. The question is what it does to the tissue it contacts along the way.

What Happens to the Oral Mucosa

SLS does not distinguish between the biofilm on enamel and the protective mucin layer coating the oral epithelium.

Desquamation. The mucin layer is a gel-like film that covers and protects the mucosal epithelium. SLS disrupts it. An experimental model showed that a 1.5% SLS dentifrice caused mucosal desquamation in 60% of subjects. A dentifrice containing cocoamphoacetate caused it far less frequently (Barkvoll & Rolla, 1994; PMID: 8653493).

Aphthous stomatitis. Once the mucin barrier is compromised, the underlying epithelium is exposed. In individuals with genetic susceptibility, this triggers a local immune response resulting in painful ulcers.

"A systematic review of four crossover studies involving 124 participants found that SLS-free dentifrice, compared to SLS-containing dentifrice, statistically significantly reduced the number of ulcers, duration of ulcers, number of episodes, and ulcer pain."

— Alli BY et al., J Oral Pathol Med, 2019

A randomized controlled trial (Shim YJ et al., 2012; PMID: 22435470) confirmed the effect: switching to an SLS-free formula significantly shortened ulcer duration and reduced pain scores. A majority of participants saw fewer recurrent episodes.

Earlier work by Herlofson & Barkvoll (1994; PMID: 7825393) was among the first controlled observations that SLS-containing paste was associated with a significantly higher frequency of aphthous episodes compared to detergent-free paste — one of the early signals that changed how the dental community viewed this ingredient.

Important context. Most people use SLS-containing toothpaste without noticeable problems. Sensitivity is individual. The documented risk concentrates in people prone to recurrent aphthous ulcers, those with chronic mucosal inflammation, or patients wearing removable dental appliances.

Alternatives That Work

Mild surfactants are not a marketing term. They are a chemically distinct class.

Sodium cocoamphoacetate — an amphoteric surfactant carrying both positive and negative charges depending on pH. This dual nature makes it considerably less aggressive toward cell membranes and the mucin layer. Foam production is comparable to SLS. Documented irritation is substantially lower.

Cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB) — another amphoteric surfactant derived from coconut oil. Widely used in "no tears" children's formulas. Clinically confirmed to be milder than SLS at equivalent cleaning concentrations.

Both cost more to source and require more formulation work. That's why they appear more often in mid-range and premium products than in mass-market toothpastes.

Surfactant Comparison

| Parameter | SLS | Sodium Cocoamphoacetate | Cocamidopropyl Betaine | |---|---|---|---| | Type | Anionic | Amphoteric | Amphoteric | | Foam | High | Medium–high | Medium | | Mucosal irritation | Documented | Minimal | Minimal | | Link to aphthous ulcers | Confirmed in RCTs | Not established | Not established | | Desquamation | Yes (up to 60% at 1.5%) | Rare | Rare | | Cost | Low | Higher | Higher |

QDRO Position

We do not use SLS in any QDRO product. The evidence on mucosal irritation is sufficient to exclude it — particularly given that effective, milder alternatives exist.

Our formulas use sodium cocoamphoacetate and cocamidopropyl betaine. The foam is there. The cleaning is there. The mucosa is not the collateral.

If you experience recurrent mouth ulcers, check your toothpaste label. Removing SLS is often the simplest first step.

---

Sources:

• Herlofson BB, Barkvoll P (1994). Sodium lauryl sulfate and recurrent aphthous ulcers. Acta Odontol Scand. PMID: 7825393
• Chahine L et al. (1997). The effect of sodium lauryl sulfate on recurrent aphthous ulcers: a clinical study. Compend Contin Educ Dent. PMID: 9656847
• Shim YJ et al. (2012). Effect of sodium lauryl sulfate on recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Oral Dis. PMID: 22435470
• Alli BY et al. (2019). Effect of sodium lauryl sulfate on recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a systematic review. J Oral Pathol Med. DOI: 10.1111/jop.12845
• Healy CM, Thornhill MH (1995). Desquamative effect of sodium lauryl sulfate on oral mucosa. Acta Odontol Scand. PMID: 8451922
• Barkvoll P, Rolla G (1994). Oral mucosal desquamation caused by two toothpaste detergents. J Clin Periodontol. PMID: 8653493
• Kasi A et al. (2022). Side effects of sodium lauryl sulfate applied in toothpastes: a scoping review. Am J Dent.