Mendonça FL, Jordão MC, Val PP, de Alencar CRB, Bassoto MDAG, Honório HM, Magalhães AC, Buzalaf MAR, da Silva TC, Rios D. Eroded enamel rehardening using two intraoral appliances designs in different times of salivary exposure.
J Clin Exp Dent 2019;
11:e1127-e1132. [PMID:
31824592 PMCID:
PMC6894912 DOI:
10.4317/jced.56222]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2019] [Accepted: 11/04/2019] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
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.
Collapse