Pontefract H, Courtney M, Smith S, Newcombe R G, Addy M
Division of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Bristol, UK.
J Clin Periodontol. 2004 Jan;31(1):1-6. doi: 10.1111/j.0303-6979.2004.00423.x.
The interaction of chlorhexidine with dietary chromogens to cause extrinsic dental staining has been exploited in vitro and in vivo to study tooth discoloration and its control. These studies in vitro investigated factors that might enhance stain formation, and evaluated formulations to inhibit the stain with the primary aim of devising a protocol for use in vivo.
The standard method cycled acrylic specimens through saliva, 0.2% chlorhexidine and tea on the hour 8 times per day and stain was measured using a spectrophotometer. Test interventions were 3 "whitening" toothpastes (A, P, R), a fluoride toothpaste (C) and water. In studies 1 and 3 interventions were at 09:00 and 16:00, and in studies 2 and 4 at 09:00 and 13:00. Between cycles, specimens remained dry in studies 1 and 2 and were maintained in water day and night in studies 3 and 4. Studies 5-7 determined the influence of tea temperature, exposure time and concentration, and chlorhexidine temperature and exposure time on stain development. Studies 8-10 modified the standard procedure using tea at triple strength and 50 degrees C, and assessed stain inhibition by toothpastes and water using optical density, colorimetric and visual assessment recordings.
In studies 1-4, there were highly significant differences between interventions. Overall, the experimental whitening paste (P) produced the most stain inhibition, and water or the proprietary whitening paste (R), produced the least stain inhibition. More stain inhibition was seen with interventions at 09:00 and 16:00. Both tea concentration and temperature significantly influenced staining. Chlorhexidine temperature did not influence staining. Exposure time to tea and chlorhexidine had a small effect on staining. In studies 8 and 9, interventions at 09:00 and 16:00 were more effective; the most stain inhibition was with paste P and the least with water, paste R being intermediate. In study 10, P was the most effective and R the least effective interventions.
These studies in vitro suggest that the chlorhexidine tea stain model can be manipulated to enhance stain and thereby should improve discrimination between stain inhibition formulations. The timing of interventions in the model appears to be important. These studies in vitro were used to plan a clinical protocol.
洗必泰与饮食中的色原物质相互作用导致牙齿外源性染色,这已在体外和体内被用于研究牙齿变色及其控制。这些体外研究调查了可能增强染色形成的因素,并评估了抑制染色的配方,主要目的是设计一种用于体内的方案。
标准方法是每天8次,每隔一小时将丙烯酸标本依次置于唾液、0.2%洗必泰溶液和茶中,然后用分光光度计测量染色情况。测试干预措施包括3种“美白”牙膏(A、P、R)、一种含氟牙膏(C)和水。在研究1和3中,干预时间为09:00和16:00;在研究2和4中,干预时间为09:00和13:00。在循环之间,研究1和2中的标本保持干燥,研究3和4中的标本日夜置于水中。研究5 - 7确定了茶的温度、暴露时间和浓度,以及洗必泰的温度和暴露时间对染色发展的影响。研究8 - 10使用三倍浓度且温度为50摄氏度的茶对标准程序进行了修改,并使用光密度、比色法和视觉评估记录来评估牙膏和水对染色的抑制作用。
在研究1 - 4中,各干预措施之间存在极显著差异。总体而言,实验性美白牙膏(P)产生的染色抑制效果最佳,水或专利美白牙膏(R)产生的染色抑制效果最差。在09:00和16:00进行干预时,染色抑制效果更明显。茶的浓度和温度均对染色有显著影响。洗必泰的温度对染色没有影响。茶和洗必泰的暴露时间对染色有轻微影响。在研究8和9中,09:00和16:00进行的干预更有效;染色抑制效果最佳的是牙膏P,最差的是水,牙膏R介于两者之间。在研究10中,P是最有效的干预措施,R是最无效的干预措施。
这些体外研究表明,洗必泰茶渍模型可以进行操控以增强染色,从而应能改善对染色抑制配方之间的区分。模型中干预的时间似乎很重要。这些体外研究被用于规划一项临床方案。