ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was evaluated the eroded enamel rehardening potential using upper palatal and lower buccal removable appliances in different times of salivary exposure (30 min, 1h, 2h, 12h) after a single erosive challenge event. MATERIAL AND METHODS: After initial surface hardness evaluation, bovine enamel blocks were eroded in vitro (0.01 M hydrochloric acid, pH 2.3, 30 seconds), selected (n = 160) and randomly assigned to the two appliance designs and twenty volunteers. Four enamel blocks were inserted in each removable appliance. On the in situ phase, the volunteers were instructed to use the upper palatal and lower buccal appliances simultaneously for 12 nonconsecutive hours. After each predetermined period of time of salivary exposure, the enamel blocks were removed from the appliances for immediate evaluation of surface hardness, enabling percentage of surface hardness recovery calculation (%SHR). The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=5%). RESULTS: The results showed no difference in the degree of enamel rehardening by the upper palatal or lower buccal appliances (p >0.0001). Regarding the time of use of the appliances, it was demonstrated that 30 minutes (upper = 21.12%, lower = 19.84%) and 1 hour (upper = 35.69%, lower = 30.50%) promoted lower hardness recovery than two hours (upper = 44.65%, lower 40.80%) of salivary exposure (p<0.0001). The use of 12 hours (upper = 49.33%, lower = 49.00%), including the sleeping time of the volunteers did not increase the %SHR. CONCLUSIONS: The location of the appliance does not influence the re-hardening ability of saliva and the use of intraoral appliances for 2 hours seems to be appropriate for partial rehardening of the softened enamel surface. Key words:Tooth erosion, in situ, saliva, tooth remineralization.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of removing excess of resin-based materials applied to eroded enamel, subjected to erosive challenge. METHODS: Bovine enamel blocks were immersed in HCl 0.01M, pH 2.3, for 30s under agitation at 50 rpm in room temperature, in order to form a softened erosion lesion. The blocks were then randomly divided into eight groups (n=12) and treated as follows: Cn- and Ce-control without treatment, Hn- and He-fissure resin sealant (Helioseal Clear(®)), An- and Ae-self-etch adhesive (Adhese(®)), In- and Ie-infiltrant (Icon(®)); being n-with excess removal and e-without excess removal of the material. After application of the materials, the blocks were immersed in HCl for 2 min, followed by immersion in artificial saliva for 120 min. This cycle was repeated four times a day for five days. Material thickness and enamel wear were assessed using profilometry. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (P<0.05). RESULTS: Groups He, Ae, and Ie resulted in the formation of a layer of material over enamel, being similar effective in inhibiting erosion progression (P>0.05). Groups Hn, An, and In (with excess removal) were similar to controls (Cn, Ce) and resulted in near enamel loss after application and after erosive challenge (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Resin-based materials are able to protect enamel against erosion only when they are present over enamel, as a physical barrier. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The resin-based materials demonstrated potential to prevent the progression of erosion lesions when the material remains on the dental surface.
