OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different fluoride- and calcium- and/or phosphate-containing products on their ability to prevent enamel demineralization under pH cycling conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Enamel bovine specimens were assigned to the following groups: G1-MPP (MI Paste Plus, 0.2% NaF, Recaldent™, GC Corporation Tokyo, Japan); G2-FD (Crest™ Cavity Protection, 0.243% NaF, Procter & Gamble, USA); G3-CLP (Clinpro™ 5000, 1.1% NaF, 3M ESPE, USA); and G4-CO (Control without fluoride, Silica-based dentifrice; Daudt Ltda, Brazil). The specimens were soaked in demineralizing solution for 6 h and remineralizing solution for 18 h alternatively for 10 days. The toothpaste was prepared with deionized water in a 1:3 ratio (w/v) for three minutes daily. The solutions were renewed every 48 h. After cycling, enamel changes were analysed by percentage change of SMH (%SMH) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). The %SMH value observed for G3-CLP (2.9 ± 39.2) was higher than that found in G4-CO (-13.0 ± 20.7), G1-MPP (-8.9 ± 20.9) and G2-FD (-3.9 ± 27.1). The %SMH was similar for all treatment groups (one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD; p < .05). The pH, Ca2+ and Ptotal in the remineralization solutions were not different among all groups (Kruskal-Wallis; p < .05). At 24 h, the Ca2+ concentration in the demineralization solution was significantly lower in G1-MPP. Ca2+ concentration increased in all groups after 48 h, except for G3-CLP. The EDX quantitative analysis showed that the atomic % of elements is lower level at G4-CO. CONCLUSIONS: The Clinpro™ 5000 demonstrated having the most protective effect against demineralization; however, the % SMH was similar for all groups.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different fluoride- and calcium- and/or phosphate-containing products on their ability to prevent enamel demineralization under pH cycling conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Enamel bovine specimens were assigned to the following groups: G1-MPP (MI Paste Plus, 0.2% NaF, Recaldent™, GC Corporation Tokyo, Japan); G2-FD (Crest™ Cavity Protection, 0.243% NaF, Procter & Gamble, USA); G3-CLP (Clinpro™ 5000, 1.1% NaF, 3M ESPE, USA); and G4-CO (Control without fluoride, Silica-based dentifrice; Daudt Ltda, Brazil). The specimens were soaked in demineralizing solution for 6 h and remineralizing solution for 18 h alternatively for 10 days. The toothpaste was prepared with deionized water in a 1:3 ratio (w/v) for three minutes daily. The solutions were renewed every 48 h. After cycling, enamel changes were analysed by percentage change of SMH (%SMH) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). The %SMH value observed for G3-CLP (2.9 ± 39.2) was higher than that found in G4-CO (-13.0 ± 20.7), G1-MPP (-8.9 ± 20.9) and G2-FD (-3.9 ± 27.1). The %SMH was similar for all treatment groups (one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD; p < .05). The pH, Ca2+ and Ptotal in the remineralization solutions were not different among all groups (Kruskal-Wallis; p < .05). At 24 h, the Ca2+ concentration in the demineralization solution was significantly lower in G1-MPP. Ca2+ concentration increased in all groups after 48 h, except for G3-CLP. The EDX quantitative analysis showed that the atomic % of elements is lower level at G4-CO. CONCLUSIONS: The Clinpro™ 5000 demonstrated having the most protective effect against demineralization; however, the % SMH was similar for all groups.