Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Protection of sound enamel and artificial enamel lesions against demineralisation: caries infiltrant versus adhesive


Schmidlin, P R; Sener, B; Attin, T; Wiegand, A (2012). Protection of sound enamel and artificial enamel lesions against demineralisation: caries infiltrant versus adhesive. Journal of Dentistry, 40(10):851-856.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the protective potential of a conventional adhesive, a caries infiltrant and a combination of both against acidic challenge in vitro.
METHODS: One-hundred-and-fifty discs from bovine lower central incisors were fabricated. Seventy-five samples remained untreated, whereas the other half was subjected to a demineralisation process (14 days, acidic buffer, and pH 5) to create artificial enamel lesions. Specimens were then radioactively irradiated, and each 15 sound and demineralised specimens were treated with a caries infiltrant (Icon, DMG), an unfilled adhesive (Heliobond, IvoclarVivadent) or a combination of infiltrant and adhesive. Specimens treated with the adhesive followed by a flowable composite (TetricEvoFlow, IvoclarVivadent) served as positive control, while untreated specimens served as negative control. All samples were then subjected to lactic acid for 3 weeks at pH 4. Loss of apatite was determined using the radiochemical method of liquid scintillation. Data were statistically analysed by Kruskal-Wallis-test, one-way ANOVA and Scheffe's post hoc tests (p ≤.05).
RESULTS: In both sound enamel and artificial caries lesions, untreated specimens showed the highest rate of apatite loss, whereas enamel treated with the adhesive and the flowable composite showed almost complete protection surface against dissolution. The caries infiltrant, the adhesive and the combination of both were able to decrease enamel dissolution, but the adhesive and the combination of adhesive and infiltrant were more effective than the infiltrant alone.
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the application of an adhesive (alone or in combination with the caries infiltrant) is more effective to protect enamel dissolution than the infiltrant alone.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the protective potential of a conventional adhesive, a caries infiltrant and a combination of both against acidic challenge in vitro.
METHODS: One-hundred-and-fifty discs from bovine lower central incisors were fabricated. Seventy-five samples remained untreated, whereas the other half was subjected to a demineralisation process (14 days, acidic buffer, and pH 5) to create artificial enamel lesions. Specimens were then radioactively irradiated, and each 15 sound and demineralised specimens were treated with a caries infiltrant (Icon, DMG), an unfilled adhesive (Heliobond, IvoclarVivadent) or a combination of infiltrant and adhesive. Specimens treated with the adhesive followed by a flowable composite (TetricEvoFlow, IvoclarVivadent) served as positive control, while untreated specimens served as negative control. All samples were then subjected to lactic acid for 3 weeks at pH 4. Loss of apatite was determined using the radiochemical method of liquid scintillation. Data were statistically analysed by Kruskal-Wallis-test, one-way ANOVA and Scheffe's post hoc tests (p ≤.05).
RESULTS: In both sound enamel and artificial caries lesions, untreated specimens showed the highest rate of apatite loss, whereas enamel treated with the adhesive and the flowable composite showed almost complete protection surface against dissolution. The caries infiltrant, the adhesive and the combination of both were able to decrease enamel dissolution, but the adhesive and the combination of adhesive and infiltrant were more effective than the infiltrant alone.
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the application of an adhesive (alone or in combination with the caries infiltrant) is more effective to protect enamel dissolution than the infiltrant alone.

Statistics

Citations

19 citations in Web of Science®
22 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

130 downloads since deposited on 04 Mar 2013
23 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2012
Deposited On:04 Mar 2013 15:50
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 16:35
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0300-5712
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.07.003
PubMed ID:22800853

Download

Download PDF  'Protection of sound enamel and artificial enamel lesions against demineralisation: caries infiltrant versus adhesive'.
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Language: English
Filetype: PDF
Size: 570kB
View at publisher