Ekaterini Paschos1, Franz-Josef Geiger2, Yuriy Malyk3, Ingrid Rudzki2, Andrea Wichelhaus4, Nicoleta Ilie3. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Goethestr. 70, 80336, Munich, Germany. epaschos@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology and Pediatric Dentistry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Orthodontics, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Goethestr. 70, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this in-vitro study was to investigate the efficacy of four preventive measures against enamel demineralization and to compare the suitability of microhardness (MH) measurements and confocal laser microscopy (CLSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 80 teeth were randomly allocated into four groups. The effect against demineralization of two coating materials (group 1: resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) cement varnish (ClinproXT); group 2: composite sealant (ProSeal)) and that of two types of bracket-bonding material (group 3: amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP) composite (AegisOrtho); group 4: RMGI (FujiOrthoLC)) was compared after pH-cycling by MH and CLSM. Measurements were made at the edge of the coating/bracket as well as at 50, 100, 200, and 400 μm distance. The data were converted into values of mineralization (Vol%) and analyzed by parametric (ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc) or non-parametric (Kruskal-Wallis and Games-Howell post hoc) tests. RESULTS: ClinproXT and ProSeal were proved to protect the bracket periphery. However, the area next to them showed demineralizations. The mean area of lesion (CLSM-data) was significantly different between the groups (p < 0.0001). The smallest lesions were revealed for the RMGI-based materials. MH identified only for group 4 a significant difference between the area next to the bracket base and that at 200 and 400 µm distance. CONCLUSION: There was nearly no lesion under both coatings. A stagnation of demineralization was identified particularly for the RMGI. ProSeal showed an inferior protection of the untreated enamel. MH and CLSM analysis were suitable to detect subsurface lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A diverse efficacy of materials against enamel demineralization at bracket periphery has to be noticed.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this in-vitro study was to investigate the efficacy of four preventive measures against enamel demineralization and to compare the suitability of microhardness (MH) measurements and confocal laser microscopy (CLSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 80 teeth were randomly allocated into four groups. The effect against demineralization of two coating materials (group 1: resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) cement varnish (ClinproXT); group 2: composite sealant (ProSeal)) and that of two types of bracket-bonding material (group 3: amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP) composite (AegisOrtho); group 4: RMGI (FujiOrthoLC)) was compared after pH-cycling by MH and CLSM. Measurements were made at the edge of the coating/bracket as well as at 50, 100, 200, and 400 μm distance. The data were converted into values of mineralization (Vol%) and analyzed by parametric (ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc) or non-parametric (Kruskal-Wallis and Games-Howell post hoc) tests. RESULTS: ClinproXT and ProSeal were proved to protect the bracket periphery. However, the area next to them showed demineralizations. The mean area of lesion (CLSM-data) was significantly different between the groups (p < 0.0001). The smallest lesions were revealed for the RMGI-based materials. MH identified only for group 4 a significant difference between the area next to the bracket base and that at 200 and 400 µm distance. CONCLUSION: There was nearly no lesion under both coatings. A stagnation of demineralization was identified particularly for the RMGI. ProSeal showed an inferior protection of the untreated enamel. MH and CLSM analysis were suitable to detect subsurface lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A diverse efficacy of materials against enamel demineralization at bracket periphery has to be noticed.
Authors: Mary A S Melo; Weslanny A Morais; Vanara F Passos; Juliana P M Lima; Lidiany K A Rodrigues Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 3.573