Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Oral Health and Preventive Dentistry
OHPD Home Page
OHPD Pre-Print
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
Official Website
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: OHPD

 

Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry

Edited by Anton Sculean, Poul Erik Petersen, Avijit Banerjee

ISSN (print) 1602-1622 • ISSN (online) 1757-9996

Publication:

July/August 2019
Volume 17 , Issue 4



Pages: 357364
DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.a42690
Back
Share Abstract:

Effect of CPP-ACPF and Nano-hydroxyapatite Preventive Treatments on the Susceptibility of Enamel to Erosive Challenge

Dimitrios Dionysopoulos / Kosmas Tolidis / Thrasyvoulos Sfeikos

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of two preventive clinical treatments on bovine enamel susceptibility after erosive challenge induced by a soft drink.

Materials and Methods: Eighteen sound bovine incisors were used for this study. Three experimental groups were assigned as follows: Group 1 was the control group; Group 2 specimens received a CPP-ACPF paste treatment; and Group 3 specimens received a treatment with a product containing 1% nano-hydroxyapatite and 455 ppmF-. The specimens were submitted to erosive challenge using a common soft drink (Coca Cola). The erosive activity on the enamel was evaluated by measuring surface microhardness change (Vickers method), surface roughness alterations and surface loss (vertical scanning interferometry (VSI) method). The data were statistically analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post-hoc test at a level of statistical significance a = 0.05.

Results: The tested treatments exhibited significantly lower decreases in surface microhardness compared to the control group after the erosive challenge (p < 0.05). The tested treatment groups did not show statistically significant lower increases in surface roughness compared to the control group (p > 0.05). In addition, the treatment groups exhibited statistically significant lower surface loss than the control group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Although the tested treatments reduced erosive activity, none of them provided complete protection against the development of enamel erosion, which means that they should be only used as a part of an individually tailored preventive programme.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
  © 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog