Ganss C, Lussi A, Klimek J
Department of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Dental Clinic, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Schlangenzahl 14, DE-35392 Giessen, Germany.
Caries Res. 2005 May-Jun;39(3):178-84. doi: 10.1159/000084795.
The study is a comparison of methods for the quantitative measurement of erosive mineral loss including longitudinal microradiography (LMR), profilometry (PM), and analysis of calcium (CA) and phosphorus (PA) in the erosion solution. Polished human enamel samples were taped, covered with nail varnish and the edges of the resulting enamel window marked with drilled holes as a reference. All samples were subjected to baseline LMR. Sixty samples each were eroded with citric acid (0.05 M; pH 2.3; 10 ml per sample) for 30, 60, 90, or 120 min. Erosive loss of each sample was estimated by the four methods. All methods revealed a linear erosive loss over time and showed good linear correlation. Values calculated from PM and LMR were both approximately 20% lower than those from CA and PA. After 30 min erosion, LMR showed no significant correlation with the other three methods. With LMR, erosive loss below 20 microm should be interpreted with care.
该研究是对包括纵向显微放射照相术(LMR)、轮廓测定法(PM)以及侵蚀溶液中钙(CA)和磷(PA)分析在内的侵蚀性矿物质损失定量测量方法的比较。将抛光的人类牙釉质样本用胶带粘贴,涂上指甲油,并在所得牙釉质窗口的边缘钻洞作为标记。所有样本均进行基线LMR检测。每组60个样本分别用柠檬酸(0.05M;pH 2.3;每个样本10ml)侵蚀30、60、90或120分钟。通过四种方法估计每个样本的侵蚀损失。所有方法均显示侵蚀损失随时间呈线性变化,且具有良好的线性相关性。由PM和LMR计算得出的值均比由CA和PA计算得出的值低约20%。侵蚀30分钟后,LMR与其他三种方法无显著相关性。对于LMR,20微米以下的侵蚀损失应谨慎解读。