Abstract:Due to gingival recession both enamel and root dentine are at risk of developing caries. Both tissues are exposed to a similar environment, however there is not a validated model to evaluate the effect of fluoride on these dental substrates simultaneously. Hence, this study aimed to validate a caries model to evaluate the effect of fluoride to prevent demineralization on enamel and root-dentine. Streptococcus mutans UA159 biofilms were formed on saliva-coated bovine enamel and root dentine slabs (n = 12 per gr… Show more
“…The results of %SHL and ∆S are also confirmed by fluoride concentration in enamel (Table 2), which is an indicator of fluoride effect in de-and remineralization (28). Decreased mineral loss observed either for %SHL or ∆S in groups treated with fluoridated solutions, especially those exposed to high cariogenic challenge, are supported by the highest fluoride incorporation in enamel found in these groups.…”
Fluoride present in toothpaste at 1,100 µg/g is considered effective on caries control. However, under high cariogenic challenge due to increasing sugar exposure, higher fluoride concentration (5,000 µg/g) could be necessary to compensate the unbalance on caries process. This was tested in a pH-cycling regimen, which evaluated the effect of fluoride concentration relative to toothpaste on reduction of enamel demineralization under conditions of two levels of cariogenic challenge. Enamel slabs (n=20) were subjected to two pH-cycling regimens, simulating 8x and 16x/day sugar exposure and were treated with solutions containing: 0 (no fluoride), 275 or 1,250 µg F/mL, resulting in 6 treatment groups: 4-h/0-F; 8-h/0-F; 4-h/275-F; 8-h/275-F; 4-h/1,250-F and 8-h/1,250-F. The 275 and 1,250 µg F/mL concentrations simulate mouth salivary dilution when 1,100 and 5,000 µg/g toothpastes are used. Enamel demineralization was assessed by surface (%SHL) and cross-sectional hardness. Fluoride taken up by enamel was also evaluated. Data were analyzed by ANOVA one-way and Tukey's test. The treatment with 1,250 µg F/mL significantly reduced %SHL compared with 275 µg F/mL (p<0.05), irrespective the level of cariogenic challenge (4-h/1,250-F vs. 4-h/275-F and 8-h/1,250-F vs 8-h/275-F comparisons, respectively). These data were supported by fluoride concentration found in enamel. These findings suggest that higher fluoride concentrations could partly compensate the greater caries risk under higher cariogenic challenge due to increasing sugar exposure.
“…The results of %SHL and ∆S are also confirmed by fluoride concentration in enamel (Table 2), which is an indicator of fluoride effect in de-and remineralization (28). Decreased mineral loss observed either for %SHL or ∆S in groups treated with fluoridated solutions, especially those exposed to high cariogenic challenge, are supported by the highest fluoride incorporation in enamel found in these groups.…”
Fluoride present in toothpaste at 1,100 µg/g is considered effective on caries control. However, under high cariogenic challenge due to increasing sugar exposure, higher fluoride concentration (5,000 µg/g) could be necessary to compensate the unbalance on caries process. This was tested in a pH-cycling regimen, which evaluated the effect of fluoride concentration relative to toothpaste on reduction of enamel demineralization under conditions of two levels of cariogenic challenge. Enamel slabs (n=20) were subjected to two pH-cycling regimens, simulating 8x and 16x/day sugar exposure and were treated with solutions containing: 0 (no fluoride), 275 or 1,250 µg F/mL, resulting in 6 treatment groups: 4-h/0-F; 8-h/0-F; 4-h/275-F; 8-h/275-F; 4-h/1,250-F and 8-h/1,250-F. The 275 and 1,250 µg F/mL concentrations simulate mouth salivary dilution when 1,100 and 5,000 µg/g toothpastes are used. Enamel demineralization was assessed by surface (%SHL) and cross-sectional hardness. Fluoride taken up by enamel was also evaluated. Data were analyzed by ANOVA one-way and Tukey's test. The treatment with 1,250 µg F/mL significantly reduced %SHL compared with 275 µg F/mL (p<0.05), irrespective the level of cariogenic challenge (4-h/1,250-F vs. 4-h/275-F and 8-h/1,250-F vs 8-h/275-F comparisons, respectively). These data were supported by fluoride concentration found in enamel. These findings suggest that higher fluoride concentrations could partly compensate the greater caries risk under higher cariogenic challenge due to increasing sugar exposure.
“…1,11,12 Thus, biofilm models have been used to evaluate the in vitro effect of toothpastes containing antimicrobial compounds such as fluoride on Streptococcus mutans biofilm formation.…”
Abstract:The study aimed to investigate the effects of bacterial biofilms on changes in the surface microhardness of enamel treated with casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) with and without fluoride. Human enamel blocks with incipient caries-like lesions were divided into four groups of 13: G1: Saliva (Control); G2: fluoride dentifrice (Crest ™ , 1100 ppm as NaF); G3: CPP-ACP (MI Paste; Recaldent ™ ); and G4: CPP-ACPF (MI Paste Plus; Recaldent™ 900 ppm as NaF). The specimens were soaked in demineralizing solution for 6 h and remineralized in artificial saliva for 18 h alternately for 10 days. The dentifrice was prepared with deionized water in a 1 : 3 ratio (w/w) or applied undiluted in the case of the CPP-ACP group. The surface microhardness (SMH) was evaluated at baseline, after artificial caries, after pH cycling and treatment with dentifrices, and after incubation in media with Streptococcus mutans for biofilm formation. The biofilms were exposed once a day to 2% sucrose and the biofilm viability was measured by MTT reduction. The percentage of change in surface microhardness (%SMHC) was calculated for each block. The data were analyzed by nonparametric test comparisons (α = 0.05). The %SMHC values observed in G2 were different from those of G1, G3, and G4 (p < 0.05). After biofilm formation, %SMHC was positive in G2 and G4 when compared to G1 and G3, but resistance to demineralization after biofilm formation was similar in all groups. In conclusion, the presence of biofilms did not influence the treatment outcomes of anticaries products.
“…Although a fluoride dose-response concentration makes regular effect on enamel and dentine demineralization reduction, a study by Fernández et al [22] shows that the effect of fluoride is different on these dental substrates. While 450 ppm F produced a 60% demineralization reduction in enamel, in dentin this effect in the same percentage can only be obtained with 1350 ppm F.…”
Section: Use Of Fluoridementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This fact can be explained by the fact that dentin suffers twice as much demineralization as enamel, being considered more susceptible to caries [22][23][24].…”
Background study: Dental caries is considered one of the most prevalent chronic oral diseases across the globe. In order to allow a comprehensive action and promoting health by the dentist, it is essential to know the process of development of this disease. It is necessary to understand the concept of caries and the mechanisms evolution involved in order to avoid its installation. Interfering adequately in its evolution and repairing consequent damages, it is possible follow the current philosophy of maximum dental preservation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.