唾液和生物膜液中氟化物浓度在三种氟化物涂料应用后的变化。

Fluoride concentration in saliva and biofilm fluid following the application of three fluoride varnishes.

机构信息

Department of Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USA; Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, University of Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Department of Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

出版信息

J Dent. 2017 May;60:87-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.03.005. Epub 2017 Mar 18.

DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2017.03.005

PMID:28322885

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Most of the commercially available fluoride varnishes (FV) have not been evaluated for their cariostatic properties. Consequently, the aim of this in vivo study was to investigate intra-oral fluoride retention and clearance patterns from three different FV.

METHODS

Eighteen subjects (7-11 years) participated in a laboratory analyst-blinded, randomized, crossover study comparing the ability of 5% sodium fluoride varnishes (CavityShield-CS, Enamel Pro-EP, Vanish-V) to enhance fluoride concentrations in biofilm fluid, centrifuged and whole saliva over a period of 48h after a single FV application.

RESULTS

Similar fluoride concentration×time patterns were noted for all investigated FV and studied variables, with the highest fluoride concentrations observed for the first biological sample collected after FV application (30min). Mean±SE (area under fluoride clearance curve) values were (μg F/g or ml×min): biofilm fluid - CS (472±191), EP (423±75),V (1264±279); centrifuged saliva - CS (42±7), EP (19±3),V (41±8); whole saliva - CS (68±11), EP (64±10),V (60±7).V delivered more fluoride to biofilm fluid than CS (p=0.0116) and EP (p=0.0065), which did not differ (p=0.27). For centrifuged saliva, CS and V were not significantly different (p=0.86), but resulted in higher fluoride retention than EP (p<0.0008). No significant differences among FV were observed for whole saliva (p=0.79).

CONCLUSION

The present study has shown that FV vary in their ability to deliver fluoride intra-orally potentially related to formulation differences. To what extent the present findings relate to clinical efficacy remains, however, to be determined.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Clinical research that investigates fluoride release patterns into saliva and biofilm fluid from different FV products is insufficient. More research is needed to investigate different FV formulations for their efficacy in order to help clinicians make better evidence based treatment choices.

摘要

目的

大多数市售氟化物涂料（FV）的防龋性能尚未得到评估。因此，本体内研究旨在研究三种不同 FV 的口腔内氟保留和清除模式。

方法

18 名受试者（7-11 岁）参加了实验室分析员盲法、随机、交叉研究，比较 5%氟化钠涂料（CavityShield-CS、Enamel Pro-EP、Vanish-V）增强生物膜液、离心唾液和全唾液中氟浓度的能力在单次 FV 应用后 48 小时内。

结果

所有研究的 FV 和研究变量均呈现相似的氟浓度×时间模式，FV 应用后首次采集的第一个生物样本中观察到最高的氟浓度（30 分钟）。平均值±SE（氟清除曲线下面积）值为（μg F/g 或 ml×min）：生物膜液-CS（472±191）、EP（423±75）、V（1264±279）；离心唾液-CS（42±7）、EP（19±3）、V（41±8）；全唾液-CS（68±11）、EP（64±10）、V（60±7）。V 向生物膜液中输送的氟化物多于 CS（p=0.0116）和 EP（p=0.0065），而 CS 和 EP 之间没有差异（p=0.27）。对于离心唾液，CS 和 V 之间没有显著差异（p=0.86），但保留的氟化物多于 EP（p<0.0008）。全唾液中 FV 之间无显著差异（p=0.79）。