4.4 Article

The anticariogenic effect of sugar-free gum containing CPP-ACP nanocomplexes on approximal caries determined using digital bitewing radiography

期刊

CARIES RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 171-184

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000128561

关键词

approximal caries progression; casein hosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate nanocomplexes; digital bitewing radiography; enamel remineralization; ordinal categorical data; randomized clinical trial; sugar-free chewing gum

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated, using digital bitewing radiography, the progression and regression of approximal caries in adolescent subjects chewing a sugar-free gum containing 54 mg CPP-ACP relative to the identical gum without CPP-ACP. 2,720 subjects from 29 schools were randomly assigned to one of the two gums and were instructed to chew their assigned gum for 3 ! 10 min/day, with one session supervised on school days, over the 24-month study period. Standardized digital bitewing radiographs were taken at the baseline and 24-month clinical examinations for each subject. The radiographs, scored by a single examiner, were assessed for approximal surface dental caries at both the enamel and dentine level. Surface level transitions were scored using a transition matrix. Caries progression or regression was analysed using proportional-odds ordered logistic regression modelling of the transition scores at the tooth surface level. There was a statistically significant difference in the frequency distributions of the transition scores between the two gum groups (OR = 0.82, p = 0.03). For subjects chewing the CPP-ACP gum the odds of a surface experiencing caries progression were 18% less than those of a surface experiencing caries progression for subjects chewing the control gum. In conclusion, the 54 mg CPP-ACP sugar-free gum significantly slowed progression and enhanced regression of approximal caries relative to a control sugar-free gum in a 24-month clinical trial. Copyright (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据