Lippert Frank, Hara Anderson T, Martinez-Mier Esperanza Angeles, Zero Domenick T
Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, Oral Health Research Institute, Indiana University School of Dentistry, 415 Lansing Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
Am J Dent. 2013 Apr;26(2):81-5.
To study the laboratory predicted anticaries efficacy of five commercially available fluoride varnishes (FV) by determining their ability to reharden and to deliver fluoride to an early caries lesion when applied directly or in close vicinity to the lesion (halo effect).
Early caries lesions were created in 80 polished bovine enamel specimens. Specimens were allocated to five FV groups (n = 16) based on Knoop surface microhardness (KHN) after lesion creation. All tested FV claimed to contain 5% sodium fluoride and were: CavityShield, Enamel Pro, MI Varnish, Prevident and Vanish. FV were applied (10 +/- 2 mg per lesion) to eight specimens per FV group (direct application); the remaining eight specimens received no FV but were later exposed to fluoride released from specimens which received a FV treatment (indirect application). Specimens were paired again and placed into containers (one per FV). Artificial saliva was added and containers placed into an incubator (27 hours at 37 degrees C). Subsequently, FV was carefully removed using chloroform. Specimens were exposed to fresh artificial saliva again (67 hours at 37 degrees C). KHN was measured and differences to baseline values calculated. Enamel fluoride uptake (EFU) was determined using the acid etch technique. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA.
The two-way ANOVA highlighted significant interactions between FV vs. application mode, for both deltaKHN and EFU (P < 0.001). All FV were able to reharden and deliver fluoride to caries lesions, but to different degrees. Furthermore, considerable differences were found for both variables between FV when applied either directly or in close vicinity to the lesion: MI Varnish and Enamel Pro exhibited greater fluoride efficacy when applied in vicinity rather than directly to the lesion, whereas CavityShield and Vanish did not differ. Prevident exhibited a higher EFU when applied directly, but little difference in rehardening.
通过测定五种市售含氟涂料（FV）在直接应用于早期龋损或在龋损附近应用（光晕效应）时重新硬化和向早期龋损输送氟的能力，研究其实验室预测的防龋效果。
在80个抛光的牛牙釉质标本上制造早期龋损。根据龋损形成后努氏表面显微硬度（KHN）将标本分为五个FV组（n = 16）。所有测试的FV均声称含有5%的氟化钠，分别为：CavityShield、Enamel Pro、MI Varnish、Prevident和Vanish。每个FV组的八个标本（直接应用）应用FV（每个龋损10±2毫克）；其余八个标本未应用FV，但随后暴露于接受FV处理的标本释放的氟中（间接应用）。标本再次配对并放入容器中（每个FV一个）。加入人工唾液并将容器放入培养箱中（37℃下27小时）。随后，用氯仿小心去除FV。标本再次暴露于新鲜人工唾液中（37℃下67小时）。测量KHN并计算与基线值的差异。使用酸蚀技术测定牙釉质氟摄取量（EFU）。数据采用双向方差分析进行分析。
双向方差分析显示，对于ΔKHN和EFU，FV与应用方式之间存在显著交互作用（P < 0.001）。所有FV都能够重新硬化并向龋损输送氟，但程度不同。此外，当直接应用于龋损或在龋损附近应用时，两种变量在FV之间也发现了相当大的差异：MI Varnish和Enamel Pro在龋损附近应用时比直接应用表现出更大的氟效果，而CavityShield和Vanish没有差异。Prevident直接应用时表现出较高的EFU，但在重新硬化方面差异不大。
