Erosive assessment of dry mouth lozenges and tablets on enamel and dentin.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the erosive potential of dry mouth lozenges and tablets on enamel and dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following lozenges and tablets were tested: Salese, Oracoat Xylimelts, Cotton Mouth, TheraBreath, DenTek OraMoist, SmartMouth, ACT, CVS Health, Rite Aid, Med Active, and Hager Pharma. pH Analysis: Each lozenge or tablet was crushed with a pestle and mortar and 5 g of the resultant powder was dissolved in 10 ml of distilled water (pH 7.02) The pH of each lozenge solution was assessed by using a calibrated pH meter. Titratable Acidity (TA) was determined by adding 0.1 M of NaOH to each homogenous tablet solution until the pH reached 7.0. Gravimetric Analysis was measured with freshly extracted molars crown/roots were sectioned at the CEJ and enamel and dentin specimens were fabricated. The specimens were then submerged in 5 ml of solution containing 2.5 gm of crushed tablets for 24 h, 48 h, 96 h and 14 days with measurements performed at each interval after drying. The solutions were renewed at each interval. RESULTS: Significant correlation between pH and TA was observed for lozenges and tablets evaluated (p < 0.0001). Both variables were strongly correlated with enamel and dentin loss (p < 0.0001). For enamel, DenTek resulted in significantly more substance loss (p < 0.05) than with the other tested products, while Xylimelts presented the lowest percentage of substance loss. For dentin, Cotton Mouth resulted in the highest substance loss, and Xylimelts presented the lowest percentage of substance loss. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong correlation between the pH, tritatable aciditiy, and erosive potential of these products. DenTek and Cotton Mouth reported erosive effect to the enamel and dentin, respectively. Xylimelts performed better than the rest of the products in relationship to enamel and dentin.

The quality of fixed prosthodontic impressions: An assessment of crown and bridge impressions received at commercial laboratories.

BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated and quantified clinically detectable errors commonly seen in impressions sent to commercial laboratories and determined possible relationships between finish line errors and other factors involved. METHODS: The authors visited 3 large and 1 small commercial dental laboratories over a 12-month period. Three calibrated examiners evaluated the impressions. The examiners evaluated all impressions for errors by using ×2.5 magnification loupes under ambient room lighting without the aid of additional illumination. RESULTS: The authors evaluated 1,157 impressions; 86% of the examined impressions had at least 1 detectable error, and 55% of the noted errors were critical errors pertaining to the finish line. The largest single error categories evaluated were tissue over the finish line (49.09%), lack of unprepared stops in dual-arch impressions (25.63%), pressure of the tray on the soft tissue (25.06%), and void at the finish line (24.38%). The factors blood on the impression (odds ratio, 2.31; P < .001) and tray type (odds ratio, 1.68; P < .001) were associated significantly with finish line errors. CONCLUSIONS: Marginal discrepancies made up the largest category of error noted in impressions evaluated. The authors noted an increase in errors at the finish line with dual-arch impression techniques and in the presence of blood. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Dentists have ethical, moral, and legal obligations bestowed on them by the profession and need to evaluate critically the work they send to laboratories. The authors strongly recommend an improvement in technique and reviewing of all impressions and working casts.