Artificial Saliva Formulations versus Human Saliva Pretreatment in Dental Erosion Experiments

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the erosion-preventive effect of different artificial saliva formulations and human saliva in vitro compared to human saliva in situ. In the in vitro experiment, bovine enamel and dentin specimens were stored in artificial saliva (4 different formulations, each n = 20), deionized water (n = 20) or human saliva (n = 6 enamel and dentin specimens/volunteer) for 120 min. In the in situ experiment, each of the 6 enamel and dentin specimens was worn intraorally by 10 volunteers for 120 min. The specimens were then eroded (HCl, pH 2.6, 60 s). Half of the specimens were subjected to microhardness analysis (enamel) and the determination of calcium release into the acid (enamel and dentin), while the other half were again placed in the respective medium or worn intraorally, respectively, for 120 min before a second erosion was performed. Knoop microhardness of enamel and the calcium release of enamel and dentin into the acid were again determined. Statistical analysis was conducted by two-way repeated-measures ANOVA or two-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Enamel microhardness was not significantly different between all test groups after the first and the second erosive challenge, respectively. Enamel calcium loss was significantly lower in situ compared to the in vitro experiment, where there was no significant difference between all test groups. Dentin calcium loss was significantly lower than deionized water only after the first and than all except one artificial saliva after the second erosion. Under the conditions of this experiment, the use of artificial saliva formulations and human saliva in vitro does not reflect the intraoral situation in dental erosion experiments adequately.

Acquired Enamel Pellicle Modification with Casein and Mucin in Different Concentrations and its Impact on Initial Dental Erosion

“…A more recent study has demonstrated that, while the hardness loss was not different, the calcium release during erosion can differ between (bovine) enamel covered with an in situ or an in vitro formed pellicle. The authors concluded that the use of saliva in vitro does not adequately reflect in situ conditions in the erosion model they used [Batista et al, 2016]. But generally, while in situ results do not fully match quantitatively with in vitro results, they usually follow the same trend [West et al, 2011].…”

Mechanical properties of toothpastes with diamond abrasives

“…Therefore, it is plausible to attribute the differences of ΔGU1, ΔL1, Δa1, and Δb1 between the groups to a possible protection against erosion offered in the less affected groups. However, Batista et al 30 excluded such an erosion‐protective effect for various formulas of artificial saliva as those were not able to build a protective pellicle layer on the enamel. On the other hand, Baumann et al 31 found artificial saliva to have a certain erosion‐protective effect.…”

“…They attributed this protective effect to the presence of sodium and chloride ions which suppressed the dissolution of hydroxyapatite. It should be mentioned that the erosive attack was undertaken differently in each of the abovementioned studies (hydrochloric acid pH 2.6/1 minute 30 and citric acid pH 3.6/1 minute 31 ). Eventually, it remains unclear whether the artificial saliva used in this study could after all offer some kind of erosion protection and thus alter the susceptibility to color adsorption.…”

Utilização de pastas contendo fosfopeptídeo de caseína-fosfato de cálcio amorfo com e sem fluoreto na prevenção da erosão dentária: uma revisão da literatura

“…No que diz respeito ao tipo de estudo, apesar de os experimentos in vitro ainda prevalecem nas investigações sobre erosão dentária, provavelmente por serem financeiramente mais viáveis e permitirem uma avaliação rápida de produtos/tratamentos 52 , os mesmos não são capazes de reproduzir as características biológicas inerentes ao ambiente bucal.…”