Maisa Camillo Jordão

CO2 laser and/or fluoride enamel treatment against in situ/ex vivo erosive challenge.

ABSTRACT Objective This in situ/ex vivo study investigated the effect of CO2 laser irradiation and acidulated phosphate fluoride gel (APF) application, separately and in combination, on enamel resistance to erosion. Material and Methods During 2 experimental 5-day crossover phases, 8 volunteers wore intraoral appliances containing bovine enamel blocks which were submitted to four groups: 1st phase - control, untreated and CO2 laser irradiation, 2nd phase - fluoride application and fluoride application before CO2 laser irradiation. Laser irradiation was performed at 10.6 µm wavelength, 5 µs pulse duration and 50 Hz frequency, with average power input and output of 2.3 W and 2.0 W, respectively (28.6 J/cm2). APF gel (1.23%F, pH 3.5) was applied on enamel surface with a microbrush and left on for 4 minutes. Then, the enamel blocks were fixed at the intraoral appliance level. The erosion was performed extraorally 4 times daily for 5 min in 150 mL of cola drink. Enamel loss was measured profilometrically after treatment and after the in situ phase. The data were tested using one-way Repeated Measures Anova and Tukeys test (p<0.05). Results CO2 laser alone (2.00±0.39 µm) did not show any significantly preventive effect against enamel erosion when compared with the control group (2.41±1.20 µm). Fluoride treated enamel, associated (1.50±0.30 µm) or not (1.47±0.63 µm) with laser irradiation, significantly differed from the control. Conclusion The APF application decreased enamel wear; however, CO2 laser irradiation did not enhance fluoride ability to reduce enamel wear.

In situ Effect of Chewing Gum with and without CPP-ACP on Enamel Surface Hardness Subsequent to ex vivo Acid Challenge

The erosion-protective effect of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) is controversial. This study aimed to investigate the ability of CPP-ACP chewing gum to prevent a single event of erosive demineralization in situ. Bovine enamel blocks (n = 120) were randomly assigned to 3 phases according to the baseline surface hardness: phase I (PI) - chewing gum with CPP-ACP, phase II (PII) - chewing gum without CPP-ACP, and control phase (PIII) - salivary effect without stimulation (no gum). Nineteen volunteers participated in this study during 3 crossover phases of 2 h. In PI and PII, the volunteers wore intraoral palatal appliances for 120 min and chewed a unit of the corresponding chewing gum for the final 30 min. In the control phase the volunteers wore the appliance for 2 h, without chewing gum. Immediately after intraoral use, the appliances were extraorally immersed in a cola drink for 5 min to promote erosive demineralization. The percentage of surface hardness loss was calculated. The data were analyzed by ANOVA models and Tukeys test. Lower enamel hardness loss was found after the use of chewing gum with CPP-ACP (PI: 32.7%) and without CPP-ACP (PII: 33.5%) compared to the salivary effect without stimulation (PIII: 39.8%) (p < 0.05). There was no difference between PI and PII (p > 0.05). The results suggest that the use of chewing gum immediately before an erosive demineralization can diminish enamel hardness loss. However, the presence of CPP-ACP in the chewing gum cannot enhance this protective effect.

The Effect of Mucin in Artificial Saliva on Erosive Rehardening and Demineralization

The effect of mucin in artificial saliva on rehardening (RE-experiment) and inhibition (DE-experiment) of erosion was evaluated. The treatment groups were: artificial saliva with mucin, artificial saliva without mucin, human saliva, and water. For the RE-experiment, after immersion of enamel blocks in citric acid (4 min), hardness was measured and blocks were subjected to treatment for 2 h. For the DE-experiment, sound blocks were subjected to treatment for 2 h and immersed in citric acid (4 min). Percentages of hardness recovery (RE) and loss (DE) were analyzed (ANOVA/Tukeys test). The salivas promoted similar rehardening, but only the saliva with mucin was similar to human saliva with regard to enamel protection against erosion.

Impact of a simplified in situ protocol on enamel loss after erosive challenge

This study investigated the effect of the period of use and location of intraoral appliances on enamel surface loss. This randomized, single blind in situ study was conducted in 2 crossover phases based on the period of use, in which maxillary and mandibular appliances were simultaneously worn. Bovine enamel blocks (n = 120) were randomly divided among the studied groups by surface hardness. In each phase, fifteen volunteers used one maxillary appliance and two mandibular appliances for 5 days. Erosive challenge was performed 4X/day by immersion in 0.01 M HCL for 2 minutes. In the continuous phase, the intraoral appliances were worn for 20 hours. In the intermittent phase the appliances were worn for 8 hours and 30 minutes. Enamel loss was determined profilometrically. The discomfort of use of the appliances were evaluated in a questionnaire. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA/Tukey’s test and chi-square test (p<0.05). The maxillary appliance promoted higher enamel loss compared to the mandibular one (p<0.001). Intermittent use of appliances resulted in similar enamel loss to the continuous one (p = 0.686). All volunteers preferred to use the maxillary appliance in an intermittent regimen. The intermittent use of maxillary appliance is a simplified reliable protocol appropriated for in situ erosion studies in enamel.

Effect of vegetable oils applied over acquired enamel pellicle on initial erosion

Abstract Objective The prevalence of dental erosion has been recently increasing, requiring new preventive and therapeutic approaches. Vegetable oils have been studied in preventive dentistry because they come from a natural, edible, low-cost, and worldwide accessible source. This study aimed to evaluate the protective effect of different vegetable oils, applied in two concentrations, on initial enamel erosion. Material and Methods Initially, the acquired pellicle was formed in situ for 2 hours. Subsequently, the enamel blocks were treated in vitro according to the study group (n=12/per group): GP5 and GP100 – 5% and pure palm oil, respectively; GC5 and GC100 – 5% and pure coconut oil; GSa5 and GSa100 – 5% and pure safflower oil; GSu5 and GSu100 – 5% and pure sunflower oil; GO5 and GO100 – 5% and pure olive oil; CON− – Deionized Water (negative control) and CON+ – Commercial Mouthwash (Elmex® Erosion Protection Dental Rinse, GABA/positive control). Then, the enamel blocks were immersed in artificial saliva for 2 minutes and subjected to short-term acid exposure in 0.5% citric acid, pH 2.4, for 30 seconds, to promote enamel surface softening. The response variable was the percentage of surface hardness loss [((SHi - SHf) / SHf )×100]. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p<0.05). Results Enamel blocks of GP100 presented similar hardness loss to GSu100 (p>0.05) and less than the other groups (p<0.05). There was no difference between GP5, GC5, GC100, GSa5, GSu100, GSa100, GSu5, GO5, GO100, CON− and CON+. Conclusion Palm oil seems to be a promising alternative for preventing enamel erosion. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate a long-term erosive cycling.