Journal Home
Search for

Volume 55, Issue 3, Pages 229-234 (March 2010)


View previous. 8 of 12 View next.

Effect of acidic fluoride treatments on early enamel erosion lesions—A comparison of calcium and profilometric analyses

Carl HjortsjöaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Grazyna Jonskib, Alix Youngc, Erik Saxegaarda

Accepted 9 January 2010.

Abstract 

Objective

The protective effect of fluoride solutions against acidic challenge on enamel was tested in vitro using calcium- and profilometer analyses.

Methods

HF-, SnF2-, TiF4- and NaF solutions (0.1M F, with a pH of 2.0, 2.9, 1.5, 7.3, respectively) and H2O were tested on a total of 60 enamel specimens divided into 10 groups. Prior to and after F-treatment five groups were exposed for 1min to 0.01M citric acid, and the other five groups for 10min to 0.1M citric acid. Enamel specimens were measured by profilometry at baseline and before and after each acidic challenge. [Ca] in the collected citric acid samples was measured by atom absorption spectroscopy (AAS). ΔCa and Δ surface height were calculated for each specimen and the data were analysed using one-way ANOVA, Tukeys test and Pearson r correlation.

Results

AAS showed that the acidic F-treatments significantly reduced enamel dissolution for both the 1min and 10min acidic challenge. Profilometry showed no significant differences between the F-solutions for the 1min groups. Significant differences could be seen between the fluorides for the 10min groups and there was a large correlation between the profilometric and AAS results. In conclusion, all fluoride solutions reduced enamel dissolution when specimens were exposed to citric acid.

Conclusions

The profilometer was not sensitive enough to measure the effects of the different fluorides against a low acidic challenge. AAS was able to show these differences and for the 10min acidic challenge there was a good correlation between the results from the two methods.

a Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Oral Function, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1109 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway

b Oral Research Laboratory, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1109 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway

c Department of Cariology and Gerodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1109 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway

Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Oral Function, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1109 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: +47 22852368; fax: +47 22852344.

PII: S0003-9969(10)00005-1

doi:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2010.01.003


View previous. 8 of 12 View next.