A Azzopardi1, D W Bartlett, T F Watson, M Sherriff. 1. Division of Conservative Dentistry, Guy's, King's and St Thomas' Dental Institute, Floor 25, Guy's Tower, King's College, London Bridge, SE1 9RT, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop a reproducible method to measure tooth wear and assess the protection given by dentine bonding agents in an erosive/abrasive wear regime. METHODS: Seal and Protect (Dentsply, UK) and Optibond Solo (Kerr, UK) were each applied to 20 extracted teeth and subjected to 3000 cycles in a reciprocating erosion/abrasion wear machine. A further 20 teeth, without protection, were subjected to the same wear regime and were either brushed in water or immersed in acid. Impressions were taken by a standardised technique and were scanned with a non-contacting laser profilometer. The amount of erosion was measured at the same co-ordinates before and after erosion using 2mm diameter metal discs as reference points. RESULTS: The amount of wear on Seal and Protect had a mean 24.8 microm (SD 57.4 microm) and for Solo it was 1.4 microm (24.5 microm), and this difference was statistically significant (p=0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in the wear measured on the teeth brushed in water or immersed in acid. The wear measured on the unprotected teeth was 243 microm (SD 120 microm) and was statistically significantly different to the protected surfaces (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Both Seal and Protect and Solo protected the teeth in this wear regime and the technique could be used clinically for patients with uncontrolled dental erosion.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a reproducible method to measure tooth wear and assess the protection given by dentine bonding agents in an erosive/abrasive wear regime. METHODS: Seal and Protect (Dentsply, UK) and Optibond Solo (Kerr, UK) were each applied to 20 extracted teeth and subjected to 3000 cycles in a reciprocating erosion/abrasion wear machine. A further 20 teeth, without protection, were subjected to the same wear regime and were either brushed in water or immersed in acid. Impressions were taken by a standardised technique and were scanned with a non-contacting laser profilometer. The amount of erosion was measured at the same co-ordinates before and after erosion using 2mm diameter metal discs as reference points. RESULTS: The amount of wear on Seal and Protect had a mean 24.8 microm (SD 57.4 microm) and for Solo it was 1.4 microm (24.5 microm), and this difference was statistically significant (p=0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in the wear measured on the teeth brushed in water or immersed in acid. The wear measured on the unprotected teeth was 243 microm (SD 120 microm) and was statistically significantly different to the protected surfaces (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Both Seal and Protect and Solo protected the teeth in this wear regime and the technique could be used clinically for patients with uncontrolled dental erosion.
Authors: Brigitte Zimmerli; Jan De Munck; Adrian Lussi; Paul Lambrechts; Bart Van Meerbeek Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 3.573