Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland,
Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Caries Res. 2020;54(5-6):509-516. doi: 10.1159/000510699. Epub 2020 Oct 28.
A combination of the proteins casein and mucin is known to modify the salivary pellicle and improve its protection of the underlying enamel from erosion. It is so far not known if this protection is confined solely to erosion, or if it also extends to abrasion, and this in vitro study aimed at investigating this question.
A total of 72 human enamel specimens were prepared and randomly assigned to four groups: pellicle (P), casein/mucin (CM), pellicle + casein/mucin (PCM), and control (Ctrl). Each specimen underwent five cycles, each cycle consisting of a pellicle/treatment part, an erosion part (3 min in 1% citric acid, pH 3.6, 25°C, 70 rpm), and an abrasion part (50 toothbrush strokes within 25 s in toothpaste slurry with a 200-g load). The pellicle/treatment part consisted of 2 h of incubation in whole human saliva for group P, 2 h of incubation (25°C, 70 rpm) in a protein mixture of 1% casein and 0.27% mucin for group CM, and 2 h of incubation in saliva followed by 2 h of incubation in the protein mixture for group PCM. The fourth group (Ctrl) served as the control and was kept in a humid chamber without saliva or protein treatment. The enamel surfaces were scanned with an optical profilometer initially and after the final cycle, and surface loss was analyzed. Furthermore, the surface microhardness (SMH) was measured initially, after each pellicle/treatment part and each erosion cycle, and after the final abrasion cycle. The results were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests with Bonferroni corrections.
The different treatments did not show differences in surface loss and therefore did not protect enamel from surface loss by abrasion. Nonetheless, we observed differences in the SMH values, namely the Ctrl group being significantly softer than the experimental groups.
The observed differences in SMH suggest that a different abrasion protocol could lead to differences in surface loss, and further investigation of whether and under which conditions pellicle modification leads to increased resistance to abrasion remains worthwhile.
已知酪蛋白和粘蛋白的组合可以改变唾液膜并改善其对釉质的保护作用,防止釉质受到侵蚀。目前尚不清楚这种保护作用是否仅限于侵蚀,还是也延伸到了磨损,本体外研究旨在探讨这个问题。
共制备了 72 个人类牙釉质标本,并随机分为四组:牙釉质(P)、酪蛋白/粘蛋白(CM)、牙釉质+酪蛋白/粘蛋白(PCM)和对照组(Ctrl)。每个标本进行五个循环,每个循环包括一个牙膜/处理部分、一个侵蚀部分(在 3%柠檬酸中 3 分钟,pH 值 3.6,25°C,70rpm)和一个磨损部分(在牙膏浆中用 200 克负载进行 50 次牙刷刷动,25 秒内)。牙膜/处理部分包括在全唾液中孵育 2 小时(P 组)、在 1%酪蛋白和 0.27%粘蛋白的蛋白质混合物中孵育 2 小时(CM 组,25°C,70rpm)以及在唾液中孵育 2 小时后在蛋白质混合物中孵育 2 小时(PCM 组)。第四组(Ctrl)作为对照组,保持在一个潮湿的腔室中,没有唾液或蛋白质处理。在初始和最后一个循环后,使用光学轮廓仪扫描牙釉质表面,并分析表面损失。此外,在初始、每次牙膜/处理部分和每次侵蚀循环以及最后一次磨损循环后测量表面显微硬度(SMH)。结果采用 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Wilcoxon 检验,并用 Bonferroni 校正。
不同的处理方法在表面损失方面没有差异,因此不能通过磨损来保护牙釉质不受表面损失。尽管如此,我们观察到 SMH 值存在差异,即 Ctrl 组明显比实验组软。
观察到的 SMH 值差异表明,不同的磨损方案可能导致表面损失的差异,进一步研究牙膜修饰是否以及在何种条件下导致抗磨损性增加仍然是值得的。