Franciny Querobim Ionta1, Fernanda Lyrio Mendonça2, Gabriela Cristina de Oliveira3, Catarina Ribeiro Barros de Alencar4, Heitor Marques Honório5, Ana Carolina Magalhães6, Daniela Rios7. 1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, PO Box 73, Bauru, SP 17012-101, Brazil. Electronic address: francinyionta@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, PO Box 73, Bauru, SP 17012-101, Brazil. Electronic address: fernandalyrio@usp.br. 3. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, PO Box 73, Bauru, SP 17012-101, Brazil. Electronic address: oliveira_gabi@yahoo.com.br. 4. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, PO Box 73, Bauru, SP 17012-101, Brazil. Electronic address: catarina.rba@gmail.com. 5. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, PO Box 73, Bauru, SP 17012-101, Brazil. Electronic address: heitorhonorio@yahoo.com.br. 6. Department of Biological Sciences, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, PO Box 73, Bauru, SP 17012-101, Brazil. Electronic address: acm@usp.br. 7. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, PO Box 73, Bauru, SP 17012-101, Brazil. Electronic address: daniriosop@yahoo.com.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Various formulations of artificial saliva are present in the literature and little guidance is available on the standardization of type of saliva for use in in vitro protocols for erosive studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the remineralizing capacity of different formulations of artificial saliva on initial enamel erosive lesion. METHODS: Bovine enamel blocks were subjected to short-term acidic exposure by immersion in citric acid 0.05 M (pH 2.5) for 15s, resulting in surface softening without tissue loss. Then 90 selected eroded enamel blocks were randomly and equally divided into 6 groups according to saliva formulation (n=15): Saliva 1 (contain mucin); Saliva 2 (Saliva 1 without mucin); Saliva 3; Saliva 4; Saliva 5 (contain sodium carboxymethyl cellulose) and control (C) (deionized water). After demineralization enamel blocks were subjected to remineralization by immersion in the saliva's formulations for 2h. Enamel remineralization was measured by superficial hardness test (% superficial hardness change). The data were tested using ANOVA and Tukey's test (p<0.05). RESULTS: All the tested formulations of artificial saliva resulted in significantly higher enamel remineralization compared to control (p<0.001). Saliva 3 showed higher percentage of enamel remineralization than Saliva 5 (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Besides the variety of artificial saliva for erosion in vitro protocols, all the formulations tested were able to partially remineralize initial erosive lesions.
OBJECTIVES: Various formulations of artificial saliva are present in the literature and little guidance is available on the standardization of type of saliva for use in in vitro protocols for erosive studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the remineralizing capacity of different formulations of artificial saliva on initial enamel erosive lesion. METHODS:Bovine enamel blocks were subjected to short-term acidic exposure by immersion in citric acid 0.05 M (pH 2.5) for 15s, resulting in surface softening without tissue loss. Then 90 selected eroded enamel blocks were randomly and equally divided into 6 groups according to saliva formulation (n=15): Saliva 1 (contain mucin); Saliva 2 (Saliva 1 without mucin); Saliva 3; Saliva 4; Saliva 5 (contain sodium carboxymethyl cellulose) and control (C) (deionized water). After demineralization enamel blocks were subjected to remineralization by immersion in the saliva's formulations for 2h. Enamel remineralization was measured by superficial hardness test (% superficial hardness change). The data were tested using ANOVA and Tukey's test (p<0.05). RESULTS: All the tested formulations of artificial saliva resulted in significantly higher enamel remineralization compared to control (p<0.001). Saliva 3 showed higher percentage of enamel remineralization than Saliva 5 (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Besides the variety of artificial saliva for erosion in vitro protocols, all the formulations tested were able to partially remineralize initial erosive lesions.
Authors: Kristen A Davenport; Clare E Hoover; Nathaniel D Denkers; Candace K Mathiason; Edward A Hoover Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 5.948