Profilometric Quantification of Erosive Tissue Loss in Dentine: A Systematic Evaluation of the Method

Abstract

Profilometry is established in erosion research. However, in the case of dentine, factors such as the demineralised organic matrix, desiccation effects, or type of measuring device may have an impact on the measurement results, which were investigated in the present study. Dentine specimens were eroded with citric acid (1%, pH 2.6) for 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min (n = 15 each). For each specimen, tissue loss was determined under various conditions - before/after enzymatic matrix removal, under standardised wet and desiccated (2/10 min) conditions - with non-contact and contact profilometry. In the presence of matrix, under wet conditions, non-contact profilometry revealed almost no tissue loss. Values (mean ± SD) ranged between 0.3 ± 0.7 µm (5 min) and 3.4 ± 1.5 µm (120 min). Contact profilometry increased values significantly (range: 2.9 ± 1.1 to 30.6 ± 5.8 µm). Desiccation (2 min) significantly increased values, except for 5 min of demineralisation, for non-contact profilometry (range: 0.8 ± 1.3 to 22.1 ± 5.5 µm), and decreased values for contact profilometry up to 15 min and increased them as from 90 min (range: 0.9 ± 1.2 to 33.0 ± 5.5 µm); results after 10 min of desiccation were comparable. After the removal of matrix, under wet conditions, values were distinctly higher (non-contact: 3.5 ± 0.8-55.5 ± 7.4 µm; contact: 4.2 ± 1.3-57.8 ± 8.1 µm). Desiccation (10 min) lowered values by about 2-5 µm due to specimen deformation. Bland-Altman comparisons of various outcomes revealed distinct significant proportional and relative biases. Loss of mineralised tissue cannot be adequately quantified in the presence of matrix. Desiccation leads to matrix shrinkage and specimen deformation. Most importantly, tissue loss values obtained in the presence or absence of matrix are not proportional. Therefore, if mineral status is the target criterion, matrix removal and moisture control are prerequisites.

Do fluoride toothpastes have similar preventive effect in permanent and primary teeth against erosive tooth wear?

“…They are the main vehicle for fluoride compounds, and they have an established preventive effect on both dental caries and erosive tooth wear . For ETW prevention, the active ingredients from toothpastes are supposed to increase the acid resistance of tooth surface and pellicles . Apart from conventional sodium fluoride toothpastes, which presented a range between 0% and 37% more preventive effects than placebo toothpaste, other compounds have been investigated .…”

“…3 For ETW prevention, the active ingredients from toothpastes are supposed to increase the acid resistance of tooth surface and pellicles. [3][4][5] Apart from conventional sodium fluoride toothpastes, which presented a range between 0% and 37% more preventive effects than placebo toothpaste, other compounds have been investigated. 5 Some polyvalent metal ions, such as stannous or titanium, in combination to sodium or amine fluorides have shown to produce more acid-resistant precipitates.…”

The quantification of surface roughness on root caries using Noncontact Optical Profilometry—An in vitro study

“…There are number of methods to quantify surface roughness in the literature [16,[18][19]. Few in vitro studies only focus on mineral loss of enamel due to tooth wear (erosion and abrasion).…”

Interaction between toothpaste abrasivity and toothbrush filament stiffness on the development of erosive/abrasive lesions in vitro

“…Depending on the severity of erosive challenges versus abrasive challenges, the SL measured may therefore not necessarily correlate to mineral loss. Several methodological considerations were brought forward recently to address differences between mineral loss and SL 26 ; however, these considerations also highlighted the need for longitudinal clinical observations to provide better recommendations for in vitro research and model development.…”