Xylitol associated or not with fluoride: Is the action the same on de- and remineralization?

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of xylitol combined or not with fluoride (F) on reduction of demineralization and increase of remineralization of shallow and deep artificial enamel lesions. METHODS: Bovine enamel samples were allocated to the following solutions groups: no xylitol (negative control), 5% xylitol, 10% xylitol, 20% xylitol, 500 ppm F (as NaF), 5% xylitol+F, 10% xylitol+F or 20% xylitol+F (n = 12-15). For the demin study, a pH-cycling model (demineralization-6 h, pH 4.7/remineralization 18 h, pH 7.0) was employed for 7 days. Treatments were applied 2 × 1 min. In the remin study, specimens were pre-demineralized for 2, 5 or 10 days. Afterwards, a pH-cycling protocol was conducted (2 h demineralizing and 22 h remineralizing solution/day for 8 days) and the same treatments were done. The response variables were percentage surface hardness loss (%SHL) and transverse microradiography. Data were analyzed by RM ANOVA/Tukey or Kruskal-Wallis/Dunn (p < 0.05) RESULTS: F and Xylitol combined with F reduced the %SHL (23-30%) compared to the negative control (61.5%). The integrated mineral loss and the lesion depth were not reduced by any treatment. Surface hardness recovery was seen only for shallow lesions in case of 20% xylitol+F compared to negative control. No lesion depth recovery, but significant mineral recovery was seen for F (2-days and 10-days lesion). CONCLUSIONS: All concentrations of xylitol+F reduced enamel surface demineralization, while only 20% xylitol+F improved surface remineralization of shallow lesions in vitro. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Our results suggest that while F or any concentration of xylitol + F reduces surface demineralization, only 20% xylitol+F improves surface remineralization of shallow lesions in vitro. Therefore, xylitol may be added into oral products, combined to F, to control dental caries.

Protein-based engineering of the initial acquired enamel pellicle in vivo: Proteomic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To study the proteomic alterations in the initial AEP after rinsing with CaneCPI-5, StN15 or Hb or their combination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In five crossover phases, after prophylaxis, 10 volunteers in 5 consecutive days, rinsed (10 mL, 1 min) with the following solutions: deionized water (H2O- negative control- 1), 0.1 mg/mL CaneCPI-5 (2), 1.88×10-5 M StN15 (3), 1.0 mg/mL Hb (4) or their combination (5). The AEP formed after 3 min was collected with electrode filter papers soaked in 3% citric acid. After protein extraction, samples were analyzed by quantitative shotgun label-free proteomics. RESULTS: Rinsing with the proteins/peptide increased the amounts of proteins in the AEP. The total numbers of proteins identified after rinsing with CaneCPI-5, StN15, Hb or their combination versus water, were 131, 167, 148 and 142, respectively. The treatment with the proteins/peptide or their combination increased proteins that bind calcium, phosphate and interact with distinct proteins, as well as proteins with antimicrobial and acid-resistant properties, such as, Cornifin-B (7.7, 12.6, and 4.3-fold for CaneCPI-5, StN15 and Hb, respectively), isoforms of Cystatin (2.2-2.4-fold for CaneCPI-5 and StN15), Proline-rich-protein 4 (4.3-fold; StN15), Histatin-1 (2.8-fold; StN15) and Hemoglobin (7.7-25-fold for Hb and Combination). Immunoglobulin, Keratin and Histone were exclusively identified upon treatment with the proteins/peptide, alone or combined. CONCLUSION: Rinsing with proteins/peptide, alone or combined, increased protective proteins in the initial AEP. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our results suggest that rinsing with the proteins/peptide or their combination increases the proteins capable of enhancing the protective function of the basal layer of AEP.