Suppr超能文献

刷牙对成膜剂防龋效果的影响。

Influence of Toothbrushing on the Antierosive Effect of Film-Forming Agents.

作者信息

Scaramucci Taís, João-Souza Samira Helena, Lippert Frank, Eckert George J, Aoki Idalina V, Hara Anderson T

机构信息

Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Sx00E3;o Paulo School of Dentistry, Sx00E3;o Paulo, Brazil.

出版信息

Caries Res. 2016;50(2):104-10. doi: 10.1159/000443619. Epub 2016 Mar 2.

Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验