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。