Park Kyung-Jin, Kroker Tessa, Groß Uwe, Zimmermann Ortrud, Krause Felix, Haak Rainer, Ziebolz Dirk
Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Korean J Orthod. 2019 Jul;49(4):246-253. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2019.49.4.246. Epub 2019 Jul 22.
To evaluate the effectiveness of three different caries-preventing agents on artificial caries in a -based caries model.
Sixty-five caries-free human molar enamel blocks were treated with a demineralization solution and a remineralization solution. The specimens were assigned to the following groups according to the caries-protective product applied: group A, chlorhexidine varnish; group B, fluoride-releasing chemically cured sealant; group C, fluoride-releasing lightcured sealant; group D, positive control (specimens that were subjected to de- and remineralization cycles without treatment with any caries-protective agents); and group E, negative control (specimens that were not subjected to de- and remineralization cycles). Samples in groups A-D were stored in demineralization solution with and thereafter in artificial saliva. This procedure was performed for 30 days. Average fluorescence loss (ΔF) and surface size of the lesions were measured using quantitative light-induced fluorescence at baseline and on the 7th, 14th, and 30th days.
After 30 days, group A demonstrated a significant increase in ΔF and the surface size of the lesions, no significant difference in comparison with the positive control group, and a significant difference in comparison with the negative control group. Group B showed no significant changes in both parameters at any of the measurement points. While group C showed increased ΔF after 14 days, no significant fluorescence change was observed after 30 days.
Both fluoride-releasing sealants (chemically or light-cured) show anti-cariogenic effects, but the use of chlorhexidine varnish for the purpose of caries protection needs to be reconsidered.
在基于龋病模型中评估三种不同防龋剂对人工龋的效果。
65个无龋的人磨牙釉质块先用脱矿溶液和再矿化溶液处理。根据所应用的防龋产品将标本分为以下几组:A组,氯己定清漆;B组,含氟化学固化封闭剂;C组,含氟光固化封闭剂;D组,阳性对照(经历脱矿和再矿化循环但未用任何防龋剂处理的标本);E组,阴性对照(未经历脱矿和再矿化循环的标本)。A - D组的样本先在含[具体物质]的脱矿溶液中储存,之后置于人工唾液中。此过程持续30天。在基线以及第7天、第14天和第30天使用定量光诱导荧光测量平均荧光损失(ΔF)和病变表面大小。
30天后,A组的ΔF和病变表面大小显著增加,与阳性对照组相比无显著差异,与阴性对照组相比有显著差异。B组在任何测量点的这两个参数均无显著变化。C组在14天后ΔF增加,但30天后未观察到显著的荧光变化。
两种含氟封闭剂(化学固化或光固化)均显示出防龋作用,但氯己定清漆用于防龋的用途需要重新考虑。