Comparison between a profilometer and a measuring microscope for measurement of enamel erosion

Chuenarrom, Chanya; Benjakul, Pojjanut

doi:10.2334/josnusd.50.475

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although measurements with a microscope is a simple, rapid and non-destructive method, it may not be suitable for analyzing enamel with extremely low or early erosion because the measurement accuracy can be influenced by focusing the objective lens (Chuenarrom and Benjakul, 2008;Zheng et al, 2009). Therefore, profilometry is not the ideal method to measure the small changes that occur in the initial stages of erosion (Hara and Zero, 2008;Hjortsjo et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The literature contains many well-known methods for the characterization and quantification of dental erosion. Among these techniques, the hardness tester (Hannig et al, 2008;Lussi et al, 2000;Passos et al, 2010;Saghiri et al, 2009;Wiegand et al, 2007), microradiography (Ganss et al, 2005(Ganss et al, , 2009Lo et al, 2010), energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence (de Carvalho Filho et al, 2011) and profilometry (Chuenarrom and Benjakul, 2008;Ganss et al, 2000Ganss et al, , 2005Ganss et al, , 2009Hannig et al, 2008;Hjortsjo et al, 2010;Ren et al, 2009a;Schlueter et al, 2009a,b) have been highlighted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of methods for quantifying dental wear caused by erosion and abrasion

Passos

Melo

Vasconcellos

et al. 2012

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various methods have been applied to evaluate the effect of erosion and abrasion. So, the aim of this study was to check the applicability of stylus profilometry (SP), surface hardness (SH) and focus-variation 3D microscopy (FVM) to the analysis of human enamel and dentin subjected to erosion/abrasion. The samples were randomly allocated into four groups (n = 10): G1-enamel/erosion, G2-enamel/erosion plus abrasion, G3-dentin/erosion, and G4-dentin/erosion plus abrasion. The specimens were selected by their surface hardness, and they were subjected to cycles of demineralization (Coca-Cola®-60 s) and remineralization (artificial saliva-60 min). For groups G2 and G4, the remineralization procedures were followed by toothbrushing (150 strokes). The above cycle was repeated 3×/day during 5 days. The samples were assessed using SH, SP, and FVM. For each substrate, the groups were compared using an unpaired t-test, and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated (α = 5%). For enamel, both profilometry technique showed greater surface loss when the erosion and abrasion processes were combined (P <0.05). The correlation analysis did not reveal any relationships among SH, SP, and FVM to G2 and G4. There were significant correlation coefficients (-0.70 and -0.67) for the comparisons between the FVM and SH methods in enamel and dentin, respectively, in G1 and G3. Choosing the ideal technique for the analysis of erosion depends on the type of dental substrate. SP was not sufficiently sensitive to measure the effects on dentin of erosion or erosion/abrasion. However, SP, FVM and SH were adequate for the detection of tissue loss and demineralization in enamel.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of methods for quantifying dental wear caused by erosion and abrasion

Passos

Melo

Vasconcellos

et al. 2012

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sample preparation for profilometric analysis was performed according to previously described methodologies [ 9 , 10 ] which were modified for this study. Briefly, the roots of each tooth were removed and the crown was cut (using a diamond saw under water irrigation) from the distal, mesial, buccal, and lingual side.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Measurements were carried out perpendicularly to the samples. For each sample, 3 measurements were made, and the mean value was calculated [ 10 , 13 ]. The roughness parameters assessed were the following: R a (defined as the average distance from the profile to the mean line over the length of assessment), R q (defined as the square root of the arithmetic mean of the squares of profile deviations from the mean line, R z (defined as the peak-to-valley values of five equal lengths within the profile, and R y (defined as the distance between peak and valley points of the profile, which can be used as an indicator of the maximum defect height within the assessed profile).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Erosive Effect of Different Soft Drinks on Enamel Surface in vitro: Application of Stylus Profilometry

Barac¹,

Gasic²,

Trutić³

et al. 2015

Med Princ Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the erosive potential of various soft drinks by measuring initial pH and titratable acidity (TA) and to evaluate enamel surface roughness using different exposure times. Materials and Methods: The initial pH of the soft drinks (group 1: Coca-Cola; group 2: orange juice; group 3: Cedevita; group 4: Guarana, and group 5: strawberry yoghurt) was measured using a pH meter, and TA was measured by titration with NaOH. Enamel samples (n = 96), cut from unerupted human third molars, were randomly assigned to 6 groups: experimental (groups 1-5) and control (filtered saliva). The samples were exposed to 50 ml of soft drinks for 15, 30 and 60 min, 3 times daily, during 10 days. Between immersions, the samples were kept in filtered saliva. Enamel surface roughness was measured by diamond stylus profilometer using the following roughness parameters: R_a, R_q, R_z, and R_y. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, Tukey's post hoc and Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc tests. Results: The pH values of the soft drinks ranged from 2.52 (Guarana) to 4.21 (strawberry yoghurt). Orange juice had the highest TA, requiring 5.70 ml of NaOH to reach pH 7.0, whereas Coca-Cola required only 1.87 ml. Roughness parameters indicated that Coca-Cola had the strongest erosion potential during the 15 min of exposure, while Coca-Cola and orange juice were similar during 30- and 60-min exposures. There were no significant differences related to all exposure times between Guarana and Cedevita. Strawberry yoghurt did not erode the enamel surface regardless of the exposure time. Conclusion: All of the tested soft drinks except yoghurt were erosive. Erosion of the enamel surfaces exposed to Coca-Cola, orange juice, Cedevita, and Guarana was directly proportional to the exposure time.

show abstract

“…Half of the area of each dentin slab was covered with nail varnish and this area was used as a reference to determine the etching depth caused by acidic soft drink. Each dentin slab was immersed in 50 mL of cola drink (pH 2.52) for 15 min (Chuenarrom and Benjakul, 2008; Honório et al , 2010; Lodi et al , 2010; Shellis et al , 2010; Torres et al , 2010; Soares et al , 2011) and rinsed with PBS. Nail polish remover was applied over the nail varnish covering the reference area until clean.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential effects of tooth‐brushing on human dentin wear following exposure to acidic soft drinks

Choi

Park

Cheong

et al. 2012

Journal of Microscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary This study used scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy to examine the short‐term potential effects of brushing time and the start‐time of tooth‐brushing after demineralization on primary dentin wear in vitro. Thirty‐six noncarious primary central incisors were assigned to 12 experimental groups. Exposure to cola drinks was used to initiate the demineralization process. Three brushing times (5, 15 and 30 s) and four start‐times of brushing (0, 30, 60 and 120 min) after an erosive attack were used for the abrasion process. Tooth‐brushing the softened dentin surface led to increases in the open tubular fraction and microstructural changes on the dentin surface. Brushing immediately after exposure to cola resulted in the greatest irreversible dentin loss, whereas brushing 60 or 120 min after pretreatment resulted in the least irreversible dentin loss. However, brushing time had no effect on the irreversible loss of dentin wear. Based on these experimental results, tooth‐brushing should be performed at least 60 min after consuming a cola drink to achieve the desired tooth cleaning and avoid the introduction of surface lesions on dentin.

show abstract

Comparison between a profilometer and a measuring microscope for measurement of enamel erosion

Cited by 10 publications

References 16 publications

Comparison of methods for quantifying dental wear caused by erosion and abrasion

Comparison of methods for quantifying dental wear caused by erosion and abrasion

Erosive Effect of Different Soft Drinks on Enamel Surface in vitro: Application of Stylus Profilometry

Potential effects of tooth‐brushing on human dentin wear following exposure to acidic soft drinks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About