Do fluoride toothpastes have similar preventive effect in permanent and deciduous teeth against erosive tooth wear?
Options
BORIS DOI
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
30431200
Description
BACKGROUND
Little is known about fluoride toothpastes effect on deciduous teeth submitted to erosive tooth wear OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the preventive effect of different toothpastes on surface loss (SL) after severe erosion/abrasion model and to compare this effect between permanent (PT) and deciduous teeth (dt).
DESIGN
Enamel samples were randomly divided according toothpastes groups (n=17). G1: placebo; G2: NaF; G3: AmF-NaF-SnCl anti-erosion; G4: SnF ; and G5: NaF anti-erosion for children. Samples were incubated in artificial saliva (1h), submitted to erosive challenge (3min; 1% citric acid; pH3.6; at 25°C) and to toothbrush abrasion (2min slurry immersion; 50 strokes; 200g) during 30 cycles. Surface loss (μm; mean±SD) was quantified by contactless profilometry. The effects of the two covariables "tooth" and "toothpaste" were analyzed by non-parametric ANOVA, variables with significant effects were tested by Wilcoxon tests.
RESULTS
dt showed significantly higher surface loss than PT in all groups (p<0.001). The mean values of SL of each group were: G1 PT 18.18(±3.98), dt 25.65(±9.21); G2 PT 14.76(±2.82), dt 18.11(±3.92); G3 PT 12.62(±5.29), dt 15.61(±6.70); G4 PT 17.12(±2.24), dt 23.41(±7.9); G5 PT 13.24(±1.29), dt 18.28(±8.96) CONCLUSIONS: In permanent teeth G3 showed the best preventive effect. In deciduous teeth G1, G3 and G5 showed similar effect. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Little is known about fluoride toothpastes effect on deciduous teeth submitted to erosive tooth wear OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the preventive effect of different toothpastes on surface loss (SL) after severe erosion/abrasion model and to compare this effect between permanent (PT) and deciduous teeth (dt).
DESIGN
Enamel samples were randomly divided according toothpastes groups (n=17). G1: placebo; G2: NaF; G3: AmF-NaF-SnCl anti-erosion; G4: SnF ; and G5: NaF anti-erosion for children. Samples were incubated in artificial saliva (1h), submitted to erosive challenge (3min; 1% citric acid; pH3.6; at 25°C) and to toothbrush abrasion (2min slurry immersion; 50 strokes; 200g) during 30 cycles. Surface loss (μm; mean±SD) was quantified by contactless profilometry. The effects of the two covariables "tooth" and "toothpaste" were analyzed by non-parametric ANOVA, variables with significant effects were tested by Wilcoxon tests.
RESULTS
dt showed significantly higher surface loss than PT in all groups (p<0.001). The mean values of SL of each group were: G1 PT 18.18(±3.98), dt 25.65(±9.21); G2 PT 14.76(±2.82), dt 18.11(±3.92); G3 PT 12.62(±5.29), dt 15.61(±6.70); G4 PT 17.12(±2.24), dt 23.41(±7.9); G5 PT 13.24(±1.29), dt 18.28(±8.96) CONCLUSIONS: In permanent teeth G3 showed the best preventive effect. In deciduous teeth G1, G3 and G5 showed similar effect. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Date of Publication
2018-11-15
Publication Type
Article
Subject(s)
Keyword(s)
Deciduous Teeth Erosive Tooth Wear Permanent Teeth Profilometry Toothpaste
Language(s)
en
Contributor(s)
Assunção, Cristiane Meira | |
Schlueter, Nadine | |
de Almeida Rodrigues, Jonas | |
Series
International journal of paediatric dentistry
Publisher
Wiley
ISSN
1365-263X
Access(Rights)
restricted