Ionta Franciny Querobim, Alencar Catarina Ribeiro Barros de, Val Poliana Pacifico, Boteon Ana Paula, Jordão Maisa Camillo, Honório Heitor Marques, Buzalaf Marília Afonso Rabelo, Rios Daniela
Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Departamento de Odontopediatria, Ortodontia e Saúde Coletiva, Bauru, SP, Brasil.
Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, Faculdade de Odontologia, Centro de Ciência e Tecnologia em Saúde, Campina Grande, PB, Brasil.
J Appl Oral Sci. 2017 Jul-Aug;25(4):420-426. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0436.
The prevalence of dental erosion has been recently increasing, requiring new preventive and therapeutic approaches. Vegetable oils have been studied in preventive dentistry because they come from a natural, edible, low-cost, and worldwide accessible source. This study aimed to evaluate the protective effect of different vegetable oils, applied in two concentrations, on initial enamel erosion.
Initially, the acquired pellicle was formed in situ for 2 hours. Subsequently, the enamel blocks were treated in vitro according to the study group (n=12/per group): GP5 and GP100 - 5% and pure palm oil, respectively; GC5 and GC100 - 5% and pure coconut oil; GSa5 and GSa100 - 5% and pure safflower oil; GSu5 and GSu100 - 5% and pure sunflower oil; GO5 and GO100 - 5% and pure olive oil; CON- - Deionized Water (negative control) and CON+ - Commercial Mouthwash (Elmex® Erosion Protection Dental Rinse, GABA/positive control). Then, the enamel blocks were immersed in artificial saliva for 2 minutes and subjected to short-term acid exposure in 0.5% citric acid, pH 2.4, for 30 seconds, to promote enamel surface softening. The response variable was the percentage of surface hardness loss [((SHi - SHf) / SHf )×100]. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p<0.05).
Enamel blocks of GP100 presented similar hardness loss to GSu100 (p>0.05) and less than the other groups (p<0.05). There was no difference between GP5, GC5, GC100, GSa5, GSu100, GSa100, GSu5, GO5, GO100, CON- and CON+.
Palm oil seems to be a promising alternative for preventing enamel erosion. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate a long-term erosive cycling.
近年来，牙釉质侵蚀的患病率不断上升，需要新的预防和治疗方法。植物油已在预防牙科领域得到研究，因为它们来自天然、可食用、低成本且全球可获取的来源。本研究旨在评估不同浓度的植物油对初始牙釉质侵蚀的保护作用。
首先，在原位形成获得性薄膜2小时。随后，根据研究组（每组n = 12）对牙釉质块进行体外处理：GP5和GP100分别为5%和纯棕榈油；GC5和GC100分别为5%和纯椰子油；GSa5和GSa100分别为5%和纯红花油；GSu5和GSu100分别为5%和纯向日葵油；GO5和GO100分别为5%和纯橄榄油；CON - 去离子水（阴性对照）和CON + - 商业漱口水（Elmex®防侵蚀保护口腔护理液，GABA/阳性对照）。然后，将牙釉质块浸入人工唾液中2分钟，并在pH值为2.4的0.5%柠檬酸中进行短期酸暴露30秒，以促进牙釉质表面软化。反应变量为表面硬度损失百分比[((SHi - SHf) / SHf )×100]。数据采用单因素方差分析和Tukey检验进行分析（p < 0.05）。
GP100的牙釉质块硬度损失与GSu100相似（p > 0.05），且低于其他组（p < 0.05）。GP5、GC5、GC100、GSa5、GSu100、GSa100、GSu5、GO5、GO100、CON - 和CON + 之间无差异。
棕榈油似乎是预防牙釉质侵蚀很有前景的替代品。然而，需要进一步研究来评估长期侵蚀循环情况。
