No abstract

This finding will help researchers in the development of erosion studies, which will provide information for dentists to offer a better treatment for erosion.

Resin-based materials that show promising effects for preventing the progression of erosion have been studied. This in vitro study evaluated the effects of applying resin-based materials, including resin infiltration, on previously eroded enamel subjected to erosive challenges. The influence of enamel surface etching prior to application of the material was also studied. Bovine enamel blocks were immersed in hydrochloric acid (HCl), 0.01 M (pH 2.3), for 30 seconds in order to form a softened erosion lesion. The blocks were then randomly divided into nine groups (n=12) and treated as follows: C = control without treatment; Hel = pit & fissure resin sealant (Helioseal Clear); Adh = two-step self-etching adhesive system (AdheSe); Tet = two-step conventional adhesive system (Tetric N-bond); and Inf = infiltrant (Icon). The Helno, Adhno, Tetno, and Infno groups received the same materials without (or with no) surface conditioning. The depth of the material's penetration into softened erosion lesions was qualitatively analyzed using reflection and fluorescence confocal microscopy. After application of the materials, the blocks were immersed in HCl for two minutes; this step was followed by immersion in artificial saliva for 120 minutes four times a day for five days (erosive cycling). Both the enamel alteration and material thickness were analyzed using profilometry, and the results were submitted to Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (p>0.05). Images from the confocal microscopy showed minimal penetration of Adh/Adhno and deep penetration of Inf/Infno into the erosive lesions. The groups Hel, Adh, Inf, Tetno, and Infno resulted in the formation of a layer of material over the enamel, which was effective in inhibiting the progression of erosion. In conclusion, the infiltrant, with or without etching, was able to penetrate and protect the enamel against dental erosion. The other resin-based materials, except for the two-step conventional adhesive, were able to penetrate and inhibit the progression of erosive lesions only when they were applied after enamel etching.

Objective The prevalence of dental erosion has been recently increasing, requiring new preventive and therapeutic approaches. Vegetable oils have been studied in preventive dentistry because they come from a natural, edible, low-cost, and worldwide accessible source. This study aimed to evaluate the protective effect of different vegetable oils, applied in two concentrations, on initial enamel erosion.Material and Methods Initially, the acquired pellicle was formed in situ for 2 hours. Subsequently, the enamel blocks were treated in vitro according to the study group (n=12/per group): GP5 and GP100 – 5% and pure palm oil, respectively; GC5 and GC100 – 5% and pure coconut oil; GSa5 and GSa100 – 5% and pure safflower oil; GSu5 and GSu100 – 5% and pure sunflower oil; GO5 and GO100 – 5% and pure olive oil; CON− – Deionized Water (negative control) and CON+ – Commercial Mouthwash (Elmex® Erosion Protection Dental Rinse, GABA/positive control). Then, the enamel blocks were immersed in artificial saliva for 2 minutes and subjected to short-term acid exposure in 0.5% citric acid, pH 2.4, for 30 seconds, to promote enamel surface softening. The response variable was the percentage of surface hardness loss [((SHi - SHf) / SHf )×100]. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p<0.05).Results Enamel blocks of GP100 presented similar hardness loss to GSu100 (p>0.05) and less than the other groups (p<0.05). There was no difference between GP5, GC5, GC100, GSa5, GSu100, GSa100, GSu5, GO5, GO100, CON− and CON+.Conclusion Palm oil seems to be a promising alternative for preventing enamel erosion. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate a long-term erosive cycling.

No abstract

This study investigated the effect of the period of use and location of intraoral appliances on enamel surface loss. This randomized, single blind in situ study was conducted in 2 crossover phases based on the period of use, in which maxillary and mandibular appliances were simultaneously worn. Bovine enamel blocks (n = 120) were randomly divided among the studied groups by surface hardness. In each phase, fifteen volunteers used one maxillary appliance and two mandibular appliances for 5 days. Erosive challenge was performed 4X/day by immersion in 0.01 M HCL for 2 minutes. In the continuous phase, the intraoral appliances were worn for 20 hours. In the intermittent phase the appliances were worn for 8 hours and 30 minutes. Enamel loss was determined profilometrically. The discomfort of use of the appliances were evaluated in a questionnaire. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA/Tukey’s test and chi-square test (p<0.05). The maxillary appliance promoted higher enamel loss compared to the mandibular one (p<0.001). Intermittent use of appliances resulted in similar enamel loss to the continuous one (p = 0.686). All volunteers preferred to use the maxillary appliance in an intermittent regimen. The intermittent use of maxillary appliance is a simplified reliable protocol appropriated for in situ erosion studies in enamel.

No abstract

The application of resin-based materials is an alternative of treatment for eroded lesions. Nevertheless, there are no studies about the penetration of these materials into eroded lesion, which might affect its adhesion. Therefore, this study evaluated the penetration of four resin-based materials, with and without enamel etching. By using an in vitro protocol, types of treatment were studied at five levels (AdheSE(®) , Tetric N-Bond(®) , Single Bond 2(®) , Helioseal Clear(®) , Icon(®) ) and types of enamel etching in two levels (with and without). Materials were stained with 0.02 mg/mL ethanolic solution of tetramethylrhodamine isothiocyanate. Bovine enamel samples (4 × 4 mm) were immersed in 0.01 M HCl, pH 2.3, for 30 seconds to produce initial eroded lesions. Afterward, the materials were applied on half of sample enamel surface following the manufacturer's instructions. On the other half of sample, the materials were applied without etching the enamel. Materials penetration into the enamel was assessed by Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy on reflection and fluorescence modes. The penetration depth (PD) was measured using ImageJ software. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey test (P < 0.05). Regardless of the material, etched enamel resulted in higher PD than non-etched (P < 0.05). Icon(®) showed the highest PD in enamel followed by Helioseal Clear(®) (P < 0.05), with significant difference between them (P < 0.05) and no difference was found among AdheSE(®) , Tetric N-Bond(®) , and Single Bond 2(®) (P > 0.05). It can be concluded that prior enamel etching increased the materials penetration into eroded enamel and the Icon(®) -infiltrant presented highest penetration.