2011
DOI: 10.1159/000325971
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Methodology and Models in Erosion Research: Discussion and Conclusions

Abstract: This paper summarises the discussions which took place at the Workshop on Methodology in Erosion Research in Zürich, 2010, and aims, where possible, to offer guidance for the development and application of both in vitro and in situ models for erosion research. The prospects for clinical trials are also discussed. All models in erosion research require a number of choices regarding experimental conditions, study design and measurement techniques, and these general aspects are discussed first. Among in vitro mod… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
123
1
62

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 189 publications
(190 citation statements)
references
References 76 publications
(49 reference statements)
4
123
1
62
Order By: Relevance
“…28 In this study, we decided to perform enamel microhardness measurements because they are the most useful method to assess enamel softening. 29 In addition, this quantitative method is simple, inexpensive, and easily applied, 30 and consists in measuring the resistance of a substrate to indentation, which can involve Vickers (tetra-pyramidal) or Knoop (rhomboid) measures. 28 Knoop microhardness was chosen in this experiment because it is considered more sensitive to changes in the surface layer of an erosive lesion 27 than other microhardness tests.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…28 In this study, we decided to perform enamel microhardness measurements because they are the most useful method to assess enamel softening. 29 In addition, this quantitative method is simple, inexpensive, and easily applied, 30 and consists in measuring the resistance of a substrate to indentation, which can involve Vickers (tetra-pyramidal) or Knoop (rhomboid) measures. 28 Knoop microhardness was chosen in this experiment because it is considered more sensitive to changes in the surface layer of an erosive lesion 27 than other microhardness tests.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Saliva may minimize the impact of theses challenges as well due to its properties of buffering capacity and ability do neutralize acidic products (3,(12)(13)(14). Even previous studies evidenced actual changes on enamel surface; the preconditioning with phosphoric acid would be enough to promote a reactive surface for bonding process, without the indication of roughening and allowing a more conservative approach (22).…”
Section: Impact Of Orange Juice On Bonding To Enamelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Erosion is primarily the result of the non-bacterial chemical attack usually involving acidic substances by intrinsic or extrinsic etiologies, which ultimately provokes the loss of dental hard tissue (2). In the beginning, it causes the softening of the surface (3) and its progression turns it more vulnerable to mechanical processes, and dental subsequent wear if not stopped (1)(2)(3)(4) In the consequence of an excessive or unusual increasing of the consumption of acidic beverages, erosive lesions have also been more evident (1,5,6). As it is a multifactorial process, the compromising level of this event depends on the balance between chemical, behavioral and biological risk factors (2,6).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…18 Enamel hardness (KHN) was measured with a Knoop microhardness diamond applied under a 25 g load for 10 s (HMV II; Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) at baseline and after 5 days of erosive challenge. All readouts were performed by the same examiner.…”
Section: Erosive Challenge and Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%