OBJECTIVES: This study assesses the application of the focus variation 3D microscopy for the evaluation of dental erosion and fluoride treatment for prevention of enamel erosion in vitro. METHODS: Human dental enamel disks were treated with Prevident 5000 (PV, n=15) for 1 week and compared with a reference group (PN, n=15) after orange juice erosion in vitro. A focus variation 3D scanning microscope (IFM) and a stylus type profilometer (SSP) were used to evaluate the erosion depths on enamel. 3D topographic images were taken with vertical resolutions of 0.1 and 0.02 microm. Scratch marks depths from SSP were measured on IFM images. Measurements were compared between the SSP and IFM and between the two study groups. RESULTS: The SSP and IFM measurements of eroded enamel surfaces showed similar trends between the two methods and between the two study groups. The SSP and the IFM measurements were statistically significantly different but correlated with each other. PV group showed consistently lower erosion depth than PN in all profile measures using both SSP and IFM. The stylus tip created scratch marks that were significantly different in depths between the eroded and the reference surfaces in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The focus variation 3D microscopy is a powerful tool in evaluating surface topography associated with enamel erosion and in assessing the treatment effects of anti-erosive therapies. Topical treatment with Prevident 5000 significantly increased enamel resistance to erosion by orange juice and should be considered as a treatment choice in patients susceptible to acidic dental erosion.
OBJECTIVES: This study assesses the application of the focus variation 3D microscopy for the evaluation of dental erosion and fluoride treatment for prevention of enamel erosion in vitro. METHODS:Human dental enamel disks were treated with Prevident 5000 (PV, n=15) for 1 week and compared with a reference group (PN, n=15) after orange juice erosion in vitro. A focus variation 3D scanning microscope (IFM) and a stylus type profilometer (SSP) were used to evaluate the erosion depths on enamel. 3D topographic images were taken with vertical resolutions of 0.1 and 0.02 microm. Scratch marks depths from SSP were measured on IFM images. Measurements were compared between the SSP and IFM and between the two study groups. RESULTS: The SSP and IFM measurements of eroded enamel surfaces showed similar trends between the two methods and between the two study groups. The SSP and the IFM measurements were statistically significantly different but correlated with each other. PV group showed consistently lower erosion depth than PN in all profile measures using both SSP and IFM. The stylus tip created scratch marks that were significantly different in depths between the eroded and the reference surfaces in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The focus variation 3D microscopy is a powerful tool in evaluating surface topography associated with enamel erosion and in assessing the treatment effects of anti-erosive therapies. Topical treatment with Prevident 5000 significantly increased enamel resistance to erosion by orange juice and should be considered as a treatment choice in patients susceptible to acidic dental erosion.
Authors: Bennett T Amaechi; Ramalingam Karthikeyan; Poornima K Mensinkai; Kaveh Najibfard; Allen C Mackey; Robert L Karlinsey Journal: Clin Cosmet Investig Dent Date: 2010-08-25