Oper Dent. 2019 May/Jun;44(3):302-311. doi: 10.2341/17-198-L. Epub 2019 Jan 10.
While patient compliance is key to preventive measures related to dental erosion, the application of resin-based materials could serve as an additional treatment to inhibit erosion progression. This study evaluated the effect of applying resin-based materials, including resin infiltrant, on previously eroded enamel subjected to prolonged erosive and abrasive challenges. The factors under study were types of treatment (infiltrant [Icon], sealant [Helioseal Clear], adhesive [Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus], and control [no treatment]); wear conditions (erosion [ERO] and erosion + abrasion [ERO + ABR]) and challenge time (5 and 20 days) in a single-phase study. The blocks were prepared from bovine enamel, eroded (0.01 M HCl, pH 2.3 for 30 seconds) and randomized among treatments, wear conditions, and volunteers. The application of resin-based materials followed the manufacturers' recommendations. Twenty-one volunteers wore the palatal intraoral device, in which one row corresponded to ERO and the other to ERO + ABR. In each row, all treatments were represented (2 blocks per treatment). For 20 days, the erosive challenge was performed 4 times/day (immersion in 0.01 M HCl, pH 2.3, for 2 minutes) for the ERO condition. For the ERO + ABR condition, two of the erosive challenges were followed by abrasion for 15 seconds with fluoride dentifrice slurry. Enamel and/or material loss was measured using profilometry (initial, after treatment, and after the end of the fifth and 20th days of erosive challenge) and analyzed by ANOVA models and Tukey's test (=0.05). The results showed that the application of resin-based materials did not cause superficial enamel loss. The infiltrant group showed a thicker layer of material above the enamel compared with the other materials (=0.001). After the erosive challenge, there was no difference between the conditions ERO and ERO + ABR (=0.869). All materials protected the enamel against erosion progression compared with the control group (=0.001). Based on these results, we conclude that the application of resin-based materials results in protection of previously eroded enamel subjected to erosive and abrasive challenge for 20 days.
尽管患者的依从性是预防与牙酸蚀相关措施的关键,但应用树脂基材料可能是抑制酸蚀进展的另一种治疗方法。本研究评估了在经历长时间酸蚀和磨蚀挑战后,应用树脂基材料(包括树脂渗透剂、密封剂、黏合剂)对先前酸蚀牙釉质的影响。研究因素包括治疗类型(渗透剂[Icon]、密封剂[Helioseal Clear]、黏合剂[Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus]和对照组[无治疗])、磨损条件(酸蚀[ERO]和酸蚀+磨蚀[ERO+ABR])和单阶段研究中的挑战时间(5 天和 20 天)。从牛牙釉质中制备样本块,用 0.01 M HCl(pH 2.3)酸蚀 30 秒,然后在治疗组、磨损条件和志愿者之间进行随机分组。树脂基材料的应用遵循制造商的建议。21 名志愿者佩戴腭内口腔装置,其中一行对应 ERO,另一行对应 ERO+ABR。在每一行中,都代表了所有的治疗方法(每个治疗方法 2 个样本块)。20 天内,酸蚀挑战每天进行 4 次(在 0.01 M HCl、pH 2.3 中浸泡 2 分钟),用于 ERO 条件。对于 ERO+ABR 条件,两次酸蚀挑战后,用含氟牙膏糊剂进行 15 秒的磨蚀。使用轮廓仪(初始、治疗后以及第 5 天和第 20 天酸蚀挑战结束时)测量牙釉质和/或材料损失,并通过方差分析模型和 Tukey 检验进行分析(=0.05)。结果表明,应用树脂基材料不会导致牙釉质表面损失。渗透剂组的牙釉质表面有比其他材料更厚的材料层(=0.001)。酸蚀挑战后,ERO 条件和 ERO+ABR 条件之间没有差异(=0.869)。与对照组相比,所有材料都能保护牙釉质免受酸蚀进展的影响(=0.001)。基于这些结果,我们得出结论,应用树脂基材料可保护经历 20 天酸蚀和磨蚀挑战的先前酸蚀牙釉质。