| Literature DB >> 25973442 |
Manuel Restrepo1, Diego G Bussaneli1, Fabiano Jeremias1, Rita C L Cordeiro1, Ana C Magalhães2, Denise M Palomari Spolidorio3, Lourdes Santos-Pinto1.
Abstract
The aims of this study were to compare the effectiveness of fluoride varnish and chlorhexidine gel in controlling white spot lesions (WSLs) adjacent to orthodontic brackets and to compare the ability of Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence (QLF) to measure mineral uptake with that of transverse microradiography (TMR). Thirty premolars with artificially induced WSLs were randomly assigned to three groups: (1) two applications of 5% NaF-varnish (F), with one-week interval, (2) two applications of 2% chlorhexidine gel (CHX), with one-week interval, and (3) control (CO), no treatment. QLF was used to measure changes in fluorescence before and after caries induction, 1 week after each application and 1, 2, and 3 months after the last application of F or CHX. TMR was performed to quantify lesion depth and mineral content after caries induction to evaluate the effects of F, CHX, and CO 3 months after the last application of agents. The data were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test. All treatments increased the mineral content during the experimental period; however, F induced faster remineralization than CHX. The correlation between QLF and TMR was significantly moderate. Two applications of fluoride varnish or 2% chlorhexidine gel at one-week intervals were effective in controlling WSLs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25973442 PMCID: PMC4417997 DOI: 10.1155/2015/218452
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Photo showing a tooth with an orthodontic bracket and the enamel area that was exposed to the artificial demineralization (dotted rectangle). The asterisk (∗) indicate the control area for QLF measurements, covered with nail varnish.
Figure 2TMR image of a representative specimen after microbiological caries induction.
Figure 3QLF image showing demineralized area adjacent to orthodontic bracket.
Summary for all TMR parameters (mean ± SD).
| Mineral loss | Lesion depth | Ratio | Lesion width | Thickness | SS layer | Lesion body |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
(Vol%, | ( | (Vol%) | ( | ( | ( | ( |
| 10174.4 ± 2060.3 | 248.3 ± 58.4 | 42.2 ± 9.24 | 18.3 ± 6.6 | 42.8 ± 5.9 | 88.0 ± 44.6 | 33.3 ± 5.6 |
n = 10, after microbiological caries induction.
Mean and SD of the fluorescence values for each group during the experimental time.
| Group | Baseline | After artificial induction of WSL | 1 week after the 1st application | 1 week after the 2nd application | 1 month | 2 months | 3 months |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −7.04 ± 0.83aA | −13.03 ± 3.77aB | −8.77 ± 2.01aA | −6.92 ± 0.52aA | −7.82 ± 2.25aA | −7.60 ± 1.88aA | −8.03 ± 1.89aA |
| CHX gel | −7.32 ± 0.96aA | −13.84 ± 5.24aB | −11.42 ± 4.77aB | −8.05 ± 1.69abA | −8.34 ± 1.38aA | −8.25 ± 0.99aA | −8.10 ± 0.94Aa |
| Control | −6.84 ± 1.47aA | −12.42 ± 2.45aB | −10.98 ± 3.89aB | −11.28 ± 3.19bB | −10.12 ± 1.78aB | −10.20 ± 1.73aB | −8.58 ± 0.063aA |
Different lower case letters within the same column show significant differences among the treatments. Different capital letters within the same row show significant differences among the periods of remineralization (repeated-measures ANOVA and Tukey's tests).
Summary and statistical comparison for TMR parameters after WSL induction and 3 months after the last application of F or CHX (mean ± SD).
| TMR parameter | After artificial induction of WSL |
| CHX* | Control* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Δ | 10174.4 ± 2060.3a | 7459 ± 960.1b | 7670 ± 7699.6b | 7608 ± 7608b |
| Lesion depth ( | 248.3 ± 58.5A | 224.43 ± 76.3A | 266.7 ± 87.2A | 208.9 ± 92.8A |
Different superscript letters in the same line show significant difference among the groups (Kruskal-Wallis for ΔZ and ANOVA for lesion depth).
*Performed at the end of the experimental time interval, 3 months after the last application of F or CHX.
Figure 4Correlation between QLF and TMR.