Arzu Aykut-Yetkiner1, Annette Wiegand2, Thomas Attin3. 1. University of Zurich, Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Zurich, Switzerland; University of Ege, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Izmir, Turkey. Electronic address: a_aykut@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University of Göttingen, Germany. 3. University of Zurich, Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of saliva substitutes on enamel erosion in vitro. METHODS: A total of 204 bovine enamel samples were embedded in acrylic resin and allocated to 17 groups (n=12). The specimens were eroded in an artificial mouth (3 days; 6×30 s/days, flow rate: 2 ml/min) using citric acid (pH: 2.5). Immediately after the erosive attacks, saliva substitutes (12 sprays, 3 gels) were applied. Between the erosive cycles the specimens were rinsed with artificial saliva (flowrate: 0.5 ml/min). A SnCl2/AmF/NaF-containing mouthrinse was used as positive control, water spray served as negative control. Enamel loss was measured profilometrically and the data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Scheffé's post hoc tests (p<0.05). RESULTS: Four saliva substitutes increased enamel erosion, probably due to the low pH or the content of citric acid. Several saliva substitutes were able to reduce enamel erosion significantly by 60-90% (in the range of the positive control). The protective potential of these products was in the range of the positive control (reduction of enamel loss to 30% of negative control). The erosion-protective potential of these high-viscous products is probably related to their film-forming properties, leading to a mechanical protection of the surface. CONCLUSION: Saliva substitutes containing a very low pH exhibit a distinct erosive potential, while most high-viscous products present an erosion-protective effect. It can be recommended that patients suffering from xerostomia and at high risk for dental erosion should use high-viscous saliva substitutes, but should avoid saliva substitutes with low pH or containing citric acid. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: It can be recommended that patients suffering from xerostomia and at high risk for dental erosion should use high-viscous saliva substitutes, but should avoid saliva substitutes with low pH or containing citric acid.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of saliva substitutes on enamel erosion in vitro. METHODS: A total of 204 bovine enamel samples were embedded in acrylic resin and allocated to 17 groups (n=12). The specimens were eroded in an artificial mouth (3 days; 6×30 s/days, flow rate: 2 ml/min) using citric acid (pH: 2.5). Immediately after the erosive attacks, saliva substitutes (12 sprays, 3 gels) were applied. Between the erosive cycles the specimens were rinsed with artificial saliva (flowrate: 0.5 ml/min). A SnCl2/AmF/NaF-containing mouthrinse was used as positive control, water spray served as negative control. Enamel loss was measured profilometrically and the data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Scheffé's post hoc tests (p<0.05). RESULTS: Four saliva substitutes increased enamel erosion, probably due to the low pH or the content of citric acid. Several saliva substitutes were able to reduce enamel erosion significantly by 60-90% (in the range of the positive control). The protective potential of these products was in the range of the positive control (reduction of enamel loss to 30% of negative control). The erosion-protective potential of these high-viscous products is probably related to their film-forming properties, leading to a mechanical protection of the surface. CONCLUSION: Saliva substitutes containing a very low pH exhibit a distinct erosive potential, while most high-viscous products present an erosion-protective effect. It can be recommended that patients suffering from xerostomia and at high risk for dental erosion should use high-viscous saliva substitutes, but should avoid saliva substitutes with low pH or containing citric acid. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: It can be recommended that patients suffering from xerostomia and at high risk for dental erosion should use high-viscous saliva substitutes, but should avoid saliva substitutes with low pH or containing citric acid.