In vitro effect of children's toothpaste on brushing abrasion of eroded primary enamel.

PURPOSE: Emerging data have suggested that acid erosion has become an increasing clinical problem in pediatric dentistry. This study aimed to investigate the abrasive effects of two commercial toothpastes on primary enamel eroded by orange juice using an in vitro model. METHODS: Thirty enamel slabs were obtained from primary teeth and then randomly assigned to three groups (n = 8) comprising two different toothpastes: G1-control-distilled water; G2-Dentifrice A (containing no fluoride); and G3-Dentifrice B (1.100 ppmF-NaF). Each slab had one half protected to provide a control side, and the other one was subjected to treatments. The slabs were submitted to daily erosive challenges (3×/day, 2 min) in concentrated orange juice (pH 3.38) associated with abrasive challenges using a tooth-brushing machine (150 brush movements for each cycle). During the experimental period, the slabs were kept in 37 °C artificial saliva, and the experiment was carried out for 5 days. The depths of the resulting eroded areas were measured by stylus profilometry. The data were analyzed using ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer test (α = 5%). RESULTS: Tooth loss (µm, mean ± SD) was 2.46 ± 1.18 for G1, 3.32 ± 2.12 for G2 and 2.14 ± 1.03 for G3. Therefore, the NaF dentifrice (Dentifrice B) produced significantly less mineral loss (p = 0.04) than dentifrice A. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that fluoride toothpaste could protect primary enamel against erosion.

In situ effects of restorative materials on dental biofilm and enamel demineralisation.

OBJECTIVES: Since secondary caries is one of the main reasons for replacing restorations, this study assessed the effects of different restorative materials on the microbiological composition of dental biofilm and on enamel demineralisation around the restoration. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, split-mouth in situ design was conducted in one phase of 14 days, during which, 20 volunteers wore palatal devices containing five human dental enamel slabs. Each slab was randomly restored with one of the following materials: Filtek-Z-250/Single Bond, control group (composite resin), Permite (amalgam), Fuji II (encapsulated resin-modified glass ionomer), Vitremer (resin-modified glass ionomer) and Ketac Molar (conventional glass ionomer). The volunteers used fluoride dentifrice, 3x/day and a 20% sucrose solution was dripped onto the slabs 8x/day. The biofilm formed on the slabs was analyzed to determine the counts of total streptococci, mutans streptococci and lactobacilli. Enamel demineralisation was determined by cross-sectional microhardness (CSMH) at 20 and 70 microm from the margin of the restoration. Kruskal-Wallis and analysis of variance, followed by least mean squares (LMS) test, were used to evaluate microbiota and CSMH among the groups. The significance level used was 5%. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in the cariogenic microbiota grown on the slabs. At a 20-mum distance, only Fuji II statistically differed from the other groups, showing the lowest demineralisation. At 70 microm, Fuji II significantly inhibited demineralisation when compared to Permite, Filtek-Z-250 and Ketac Molar. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of fluoride dentifrice and under the cariogenic exposure conditions of this study, only the encapsulated resin-modified glass ionomer material provided additional protection against secondary caries.