OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study aimed to analyze the influence of carbon dioxide (CO(2)) laser irradiation on the efficacy of titanium tetrafluoride (TiF(4)) and amine fluoride (AmF) in protecting enamel and dentin against erosion. METHODS: Bovine enamel and dentin samples were pretreated with carbon dioxide (CO(2)) laser irradiation only (group I), TiF(4) only (1% F, group II), CO(2) laser irradiation before (group III) or through (group IV) TiF(4) application, AmF only (1% F, group V), or CO(2) laser irradiation before (group VI) or through (group VII) AmF application. Controls remained untreated. Ten samples of each group were then subjected to an erosive demineralization and remineralization cycling for 5 days. Enamel and dentin loss were measured profilometrically after pretreatment, 4 cycles (1 day), and 20 cycles (5 days) and statistically analyzed using analysis of variance and Scheffe's post hoc tests. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis was performed in pretreated but not cycled samples (two samples each group). RESULTS: After 20 cycles, there was significantly less enamel loss in groups V and IV and significantly less dentin loss in group V only. All other groups were not significantly different from the controls. Lased surfaces (group I) appeared unchanged in the SEM images, although SEM images of enamel but not of dentin showed that CO(2) laser irradiation affected the formation of fluoride precipitates. CONCLUSION: AmF decreased enamel and dentin erosion, but CO(2) laser irradiation did not improve its efficacy. TiF(4) showed only a limited capacity to prevent erosion, but CO(2) laser irradiation significantly enhanced its ability to reduce enamel erosion.
OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study aimed to analyze the influence of carbon dioxide (CO(2)) laser irradiation on the efficacy of titanium tetrafluoride (TiF(4)) and amine fluoride (AmF) in protecting enamel and dentin against erosion. METHODS:Bovine enamel and dentin samples were pretreated with carbon dioxide (CO(2)) laser irradiation only (group I), TiF(4) only (1% F, group II), CO(2) laser irradiation before (group III) or through (group IV) TiF(4) application, AmF only (1% F, group V), or CO(2) laser irradiation before (group VI) or through (group VII) AmF application. Controls remained untreated. Ten samples of each group were then subjected to an erosive demineralization and remineralization cycling for 5 days. Enamel and dentin loss were measured profilometrically after pretreatment, 4 cycles (1 day), and 20 cycles (5 days) and statistically analyzed using analysis of variance and Scheffe's post hoc tests. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis was performed in pretreated but not cycled samples (two samples each group). RESULTS: After 20 cycles, there was significantly less enamel loss in groups V and IV and significantly less dentin loss in group V only. All other groups were not significantly different from the controls. Lased surfaces (group I) appeared unchanged in the SEM images, although SEM images of enamel but not of dentin showed that CO(2) laser irradiation affected the formation of fluoride precipitates. CONCLUSION:AmF decreased enamel and dentin erosion, but CO(2) laser irradiation did not improve its efficacy. TiF(4) showed only a limited capacity to prevent erosion, but CO(2) laser irradiation significantly enhanced its ability to reduce enamel erosion.
Authors: Karen Müller Ramalho; Carlos de Paula Eduardo; Nicole Heussen; Rodney Garcia Rocha; Friedrich Lampert; Christian Apel; Marcella Esteves-Oliveira Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: R S Scatolin; V Colucci; T P Lepri; A K Alexandria; L C Maia; R Galo; M C Borsatto; S A M Corona Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Samira Helena João-Souza; Sávio José Cardoso Bezerra; Alessandra Bühler Borges; Ana Cecília Aranha; Tais Scaramucci Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 3.161