Scaramucci Taís, João-Souza Samira Helena, Lippert Frank, Eckert George J, Aoki Idalina V, Hara Anderson T
Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Sx00E3;o Paulo School of Dentistry, Sx00E3;o Paulo, Brazil.
Caries Res. 2016;50(2):104-10. doi: 10.1159/000443619. Epub 2016 Mar 2.
This study evaluated the influence of toothbrushing on the antierosive effect of solutions containing sodium fluoride (225 ppm/F), stannous chloride (800 ppm/Sn), sodium linear polyphosphate (2%/LPP), and their combinations, and deionized water as negative control (C). Solutions were tested in a 5-day erosion-remineralization-abrasion cycling model, using enamel and dentin specimens (n = 8). Erosion was performed 6 times/day for 5 min, exposure to the test solutions 3 times/day for 2min, and toothbrushing (or not) with toothpaste slurry 2 times/day for 2 min (45 strokes). Surface loss (SL) was determined by noncontact profilometry. Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Brushing caused more SL than no brushing for enamel (mean ± SD, in micrometers: 52.7 ± 6.6 and 33.0 ± 4.5, respectively), but not for dentin (28.2 ± 1.9 and 26.6 ± 1.8, respectively). For enamel without brushing, F+LPP+Sn showed the lowest SL (23.8 ± 3.4), followed by F+Sn (30.6 ± 4.9) and F+LPP (31.7 ± 1.7), which did not differ from each other. No differences were found between the other groups and C (37.8 ± 2.1). When brushing, F+LPP+Sn exhibited the lowest SL (36.7 ± 2.4), not differing from F+LPP (39.1 ± 1.8). F, F+Sn and LPP+Sn were similar (46.7 ± 2.9, 42.1 ± 2.8 and 45.3 ± 4.6, respectively) and better than C (52.7 ± 4.3). Sn (55.0 ± 2.4) and LPP (51.0 ± 4.3) did not differ from C. For dentin, neither groups differed from C, regardless of brushing. In conclusion, toothbrushing did not affect the antierosive effect of F+Sn, F+LPP and F+LPP+Sn on enamel, although overall it led to more erosion than nonbrushing. F and LPP+Sn showed a protective effect only under brushing conditions, whereas Sn and LPP did not exhibit any protection. For dentin, neither toothbrushing nor the test solutions influenced the development of erosion.
本研究评估了刷牙对含氟化钠（225 ppm/F）、氯化亚锡（800 ppm/Sn）、线性聚磷酸钠（2%/LPP）及其组合的溶液以及作为阴性对照（C）的去离子水的抗侵蚀效果的影响。使用釉质和牙本质标本（n = 8），在一个为期5天的侵蚀-再矿化-磨损循环模型中对溶液进行测试。每天进行6次侵蚀，每次5分钟；每天3次接触测试溶液，每次2分钟；每天2次用牙膏糊刷牙（或不刷牙），每次2分钟（45次刷动）。通过非接触轮廓仪测定表面损失（SL）。使用三因素方差分析（α = 0.05）对数据进行分析。对于釉质，刷牙导致的SL比不刷牙更多（平均值±标准差，单位为微米：分别为52.7±6.6和33.0±4.5），但对于牙本质则不然（分别为28.2±1.9和26.6±1.8）。对于未刷牙的釉质，F+LPP+Sn的SL最低（23.8±3.4），其次是F+Sn（30.6±4.9）和F+LPP（31.7±1.7），它们之间无差异。其他组与C组（37.8±2.1）之间未发现差异。刷牙时，F+LPP+Sn的SL最低（36.7±2.4），与F+LPP（39.1±1.8）无差异。F、F+Sn和LPP+Sn相似（分别为46.7±2.9、42.1±2.8和45.3±4.6），且优于C组（52.7±4.3）。Sn（55.0±2.4）和LPP（51.0±4.3）与C组无差异。对于牙本质，无论是否刷牙，各实验组与C组均无差异。总之，刷牙虽总体上比不刷牙导致更多侵蚀，但不影响F+Sn、F+LPP和F+LPP+Sn对釉质的抗侵蚀效果。F和LPP+Sn仅在刷牙条件下显示出保护作用，而Sn和LPP未表现出任何保护作用。对于牙本质，刷牙和测试溶液均未影响侵蚀的发展。
