Wiegand Annette, Bichsel Dominique, Magalhães Ana Carolina, Becker Klaus, Attin Thomas
Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University of Zürich, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032 Zürich, Switzerland.
J Dent. 2009 Aug;37(8):591-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.03.020. Epub 2009 Apr 5.
This study aimed to compare the effects 0.5% and 1% sodium, amine and stannous fluoride at different pH on enamel erosion in vitro.
Bovine enamel samples were submitted to a cyclic de- and remineralisation for 3 days. Each day, the samples were exposed for 120 min to pooled human saliva and subsequently treated with one of the fluoride solutions for 3 min: amine fluoride (AmF, 0.5% and 1% F(-)), sodium fluoride (NaF, 0.5% and 1% F(-)), each at pH 3.9 and 7.0, and stannous fluoride (SnF(2), 0.5% and 1% F(-)), at pH: 3.9. Additionally, two groups were treated with fluoride-free placebo solutions (pH: 3.9 and 7.0) and one group served as control (no fluoridation). Ten specimens each group were inserted in a so-called artificial mouth and eroded six times daily with hydrochloric acid (pH 2.6) for 90 s each intermitted by exposure to artificial saliva (1h). After 3 days, enamel loss was analyzed profilometrically and evaluated statistically by ANOVA.
Only the acidic 0.5% and 1% SnF(2) and 1% AmF solutions were able to reduce erosive enamel loss significantly, while all other solutions and placebos did not differ significantly from the control. Between the acidic SnF(2) and the 1% AmF solutions no significant differences could be detected.
At the same concentrations, acidic SnF(2) and AmF may be more effective than NaF to protect enamel against erosion.
本研究旨在比较不同pH值下0.5%和1%的氟化钠、胺氟化物和氟化亚锡对体外牙釉质侵蚀的影响。
将牛牙釉质样本进行3天的循环脱矿和再矿化处理。每天，样本暴露于混合的人唾液中120分钟，随后用以下一种氟化物溶液处理3分钟：胺氟化物（AmF，0.5%和1% F(-)）、氟化钠（NaF，0.5%和1% F(-)），每种在pH 3.9和7.0时使用，以及氟化亚锡（SnF₂，0.5%和1% F(-)），在pH 3.9时使用。此外，两组用无氟安慰剂溶液（pH：3.9和7.0）处理，一组作为对照（不进行氟化处理）。每组10个样本被放入所谓的人工口腔中，每天用盐酸（pH 2.6）侵蚀6次，每次90秒，中间暴露于人工唾液（1小时）。3天后，通过轮廓仪分析牙釉质损失，并通过方差分析进行统计学评估。
只有酸性的0.5%和1% SnF₂溶液以及1% AmF溶液能够显著减少侵蚀性牙釉质损失，而所有其他溶液和安慰剂与对照组相比无显著差异。在酸性SnF₂溶液和1% AmF溶液之间未检测到显著差异。
在相同浓度下，酸性SnF₂和AmF在保护牙釉质免受侵蚀方面可能比NaF更有效。
