Kitsahawong Kemporn, Pitiphat Waranuch, Thongpaiboon Pawin, Thongpaiboon Sasitorn, Saengsuwannarot Sutthiphon
Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Dental Division, Phra Yuen Hospital, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Front Oral Health. 2024 Sep 5;5:1469228. doi: 10.3389/froh.2024.1469228. eCollection 2024.
Dental erosion is a common problem among swimmers. This study evaluated the effects of mouthguard use with or without neutralizing agents, compared to no mouthguard use, on the microhardness of dental enamel after a swimming simulation.
Ninety-six human premolars were randomly allocated into six groups of 16 each: Group A (no mouthguard), Group B (mouthguard only), Group C (mouthguard with fluoride toothpaste), Group D (mouthguard with fluoride-free toothpaste), Group E (mouthguard with CPP-ACP), and Group F (mouthguard with arginine-fluoride toothpaste). Enamel slabs were fixed in a wax model (Typodont Articulator) and used to fabricate mouthguards for all groups except Group A. Each specimen underwent cyclic immersion: 2 h in acidic chlorinated water (pH 3.1) followed by 22 h in artificial saliva, for 28 days, to simulate swimming exposure. The change in enamel surface hardness was measured using a Vickers hardness tester. All groups underwent microhardness testing, scanning electron microscopy, and polarized light microscopy.
The enamel hardness significantly decreased in all groups after the swimming simulation (paired -test, -values < 0.001), except for Group F, which used a mouthguard with arginine-fluoride toothpaste [mean reduction: 17.9 kg/mm, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.9, 37.7, -value = 0.07]. Group A, without a mouthguard, exhibited the highest reduction in enamel surface hardness (mean: 190.6 kg/mm; 95%CI: 177.4, 203.9), significantly differing from all other groups with mouthguards (-values < 0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were observed in enamel hardness reduction among the mouthguard groups. SEM micrographs illustrated rough, irregular erosion patterns and several deep porous areas on enamel surfaces of Group A. In contrast, all mouthguard groups showed enamel surfaces similar to sound tooth surfaces. A polarized light microscopic study revealed the deepest dark areas on the enamel surface of Group A.
Mouthguards significantly reduced enamel microhardness loss compared to no mouthguard use. While no significant differences were found among mouthguard groups with or without neutralizing agents, those lined with arginine-fluoride toothpaste showed the least enamel loss, suggesting its potential protective effect. Within the limitations of this study, further clinical trials are needed to validate these results.
牙齿侵蚀是游泳运动员中常见的问题。本研究评估了在模拟游泳后,使用含或不含中和剂的护齿器与不使用护齿器相比,对牙釉质显微硬度的影响。
96颗人前磨牙被随机分为6组,每组16颗:A组(不使用护齿器)、B组(仅使用护齿器)、C组(使用含氟牙膏的护齿器)、D组(使用不含氟牙膏的护齿器)、E组(使用酪蛋白磷酸肽 - 无定形磷酸钙的护齿器)和F组(使用含精氨酸 - 氟化物牙膏的护齿器)。将牙釉质块固定在蜡模型(Typodont咬合架)中,用于为除A组外的所有组制作护齿器。每个标本进行循环浸泡:在酸性氯化水中浸泡2小时(pH 3.1),然后在人工唾液中浸泡22小时,持续28天,以模拟游泳暴露。使用维氏硬度测试仪测量牙釉质表面硬度的变化。所有组均进行显微硬度测试、扫描电子显微镜检查和偏光显微镜检查。
在模拟游泳后,除使用含精氨酸 - 氟化物牙膏护齿器的F组外,所有组的牙釉质硬度均显著降低(配对检验,P值<0.001)[平均降低:17.9 kg/mm,95%置信区间(CI):-1.9,37.7,P值 = 0.07]。不使用护齿器的A组牙釉质表面硬度降低最多(平均值:190.6 kg/mm;95%CI:177.4,203.9),与所有其他使用护齿器的组有显著差异(P值<0.001)。然而,在使用护齿器的组之间,牙釉质硬度降低没有观察到统计学上的显著差异。扫描电子显微镜图像显示A组牙釉质表面粗糙、不规则的侵蚀模式和几个深的多孔区域。相比之下,所有使用护齿器的组的牙釉质表面与健康牙齿表面相似。偏光显微镜研究显示A组牙釉质表面最深的暗区。
与不使用护齿器相比,护齿器显著减少了牙釉质显微硬度的损失。虽然在使用或不使用中和剂的护齿器组之间没有发现显著差异,但使用含精氨酸 - 氟化物牙膏的护齿器组牙釉质损失最少,表明其潜在的保护作用。在本研究的局限性内,需要进一步的临床试验来验证这些结果。