4.4 Article

Effect of Different Fluoride Concentrations of Experimental Dentifrices on Enamel Erosion and Abrasion

期刊

CARIES RESEARCH
卷 44, 期 2, 页码 135-140

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000302902

关键词

Dental enamel, abrasion; Dental enamel, erosion; Dentifrice, fluoride; Trimetaphosphate

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development [133857/2007-7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been suggested that fluoride products are able to reduce erosive tooth wear. Thus, the purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of dentifrices with different fluoride concentrations as well as of a low-fluoridated dentifrice supplemented with trimetaphosphate (TMP) on enamel erosion and abrasion. One hundred twenty bovine enamel blocks were assigned to the following experimental dentifrices: placebo, 1,100 mu g F/g, 500 mu g F/g plus 3% TMP and 5,000 mu g F/g. The groups of enamel blocks were additionally subdivided into conditions of erosion (ERO) and of erosion plus abrasion (ERO + ABR). For 7 days, the blocks were subjected to erosive challenges (immersion in Sprite (R) 4 times a day for 5 min each time) followed by a remineralizing period (immersion in artificial saliva between erosive challenges for 2 h). After each erosive challenge, the blocks were exposed to slurries of the dentifrices (10 ml/sample for 15 s). Sixty of the blocks were additionally abraded by brushing using an electric toothbrush (15 s). The alterations of the enamel were quantified using the Knoop hardness test and profilometry (measurements in micrometers). The data were analyzed using a 2-way ANOVA test followed by a Bonferroni correction (p < 0.05). In in vitro conditions, the 5,000 mu g F/g and 500 mu g F/g plus 3% TMP dentifrices had a greater protective effect when compared with the 1,100 mu g F/g dentifrice, under both ERO and ERO + ABR conditions. The results suggest that dentifrices alone are not capable of completely inhibiting tooth wear. Copyright (C) 2010 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