Global oral health inequalities: dental caries task group--research agenda.

The IADR Global Oral Health Inequalities Task Group on Dental Caries has synthesized current evidence and opinion to identify a five-year implementation and research agenda which should lead to improvements in global oral health, with particular reference to the implementation of current best evidence as well as integrated action to reduce caries and health inequalities between and within countries. The Group determined that research should: integrate health and oral health wherever possible, using common risk factors; be able to respond to and influence international developments in health, healthcare, and health payment systems as well as dental prevention and materials; and exploit the potential for novel funding partnerships with industry and foundations. More effective communication between and among the basic science, clinical science, and health promotion/public health research communities is needed. Translation of research into policy and practice should be a priority for all. Both community and individual interventions need tailoring to achieve a more equal and person-centered preventive focus and reduce any social gradient in health. Recommendations are made for both clinical and public health implementation of existing research and for caries-related research agendas in clinical science, health promotion/public health, and basic science.

Comparison of calcium analysis, longitudinal microradiography and profilometry for the quantitative assessment of erosion in dentine.

Erosion of dentine causes mineral dissolution, while the organic compounds remain at the surface. Therefore, a determination of tissue loss is complicated. Established quantitative methods for the evaluation of enamel have also been used for dentine, but the suitability of these techniques in this field has not been systematically determined. Therefore, this study aimed to compare longitudinal microradiography (LMR), contacting (cPM) and non-contacting profilometry (ncPM), and analysis of dissolved calcium (Ca analysis) in the erosion solution. Results are discussed in the light of the histology of dentine erosion. Erosion was performed with 0.05 M citric acid (pH 2.5) for 30, 60, 90 or 120 min, and erosive loss was determined by each method. LMR, cPM and ncPM were performed before and after collagenase digestion of the demineralised organic surface layer, with an emphasis on moisture control. Scanning electron microscopy was performed on randomly selected specimens. All measurements were converted into micrometres. Profilometry was not suitable to adequately quantify mineral loss prior to collagenase digestion. After 120 min of erosion, values of 5.4 +/- 1.9 microm (ncPM) and 27.8 +/- 4.6 microm (cPM) were determined. Ca analysis revealed a mineral loss of 55.4 +/- 11.5 microm. The values for profilometry after matrix digestion were 43.0 +/- 5.5 microm (ncPM) and 46.9 +/- 6.2 (cPM). Relative and proportional biases were detected for all method comparisons. The mineral loss values were below the detection limit for LMR. The study revealed gross differences between methods, particularly when demineralised organic surface tissue was present. These results indicate that the choice of method is critical and depends on the parameter under study.

Comparison of calcium/phosphorus analysis, longitudinal microradiography and profilometry for the quantitative assessment of erosive demineralisation.

The study is a comparison of methods for the quantitative measurement of erosive mineral loss including longitudinal microradiography (LMR), profilometry (PM), and analysis of calcium (CA) and phosphorus (PA) in the erosion solution. Polished human enamel samples were taped, covered with nail varnish and the edges of the resulting enamel window marked with drilled holes as a reference. All samples were subjected to baseline LMR. Sixty samples each were eroded with citric acid (0.05 M; pH 2.3; 10 ml per sample) for 30, 60, 90, or 120 min. Erosive loss of each sample was estimated by the four methods. All methods revealed a linear erosive loss over time and showed good linear correlation. Values calculated from PM and LMR were both approximately 20% lower than those from CA and PA. After 30 min erosion, LMR showed no significant correlation with the other three methods. With LMR, erosive loss below 20 microm should be interpreted with care.