An in vitro comparison of three fluoride regimens on enamel remineralization.
The purpose of this study was to compare the enamel remineralization effectiveness of a fluoride rinse, fluoridated dentifrice, and fluoride-releasing restorative material. Forty extracted molars had 1 x 5 mm artificial carious lesions formed at the interproximal contact point. One-hundred-micrometer sections were obtained at the caries sites, and polarized light photomicrographs were obtained. The sections had varnish placed, leaving only the external section site exposed, and were situated back into the original tooth. Forty other molars were obtained; 10 had Class-II glass ionomer cement restorations placed. These 40 teeth were mounted to have interproximal contact with the adjacent teeth containing artificial carious lesions. Specimens were placed in closed environments of artificial saliva for 1 month, with saliva being changed every 48 h. Ten specimen pairs were brushed with a fluoridated dentifrice for 2 min, twice per day, 10 specimen pairs were rinsed with a 0.05% sodium fluoride rinse for 1 min twice per day, 10 specimen pairs had Class-II glass ionomer cement restorations positioned adjacent to 10 teeth with artificial carious lesions, and 10 specimen pairs acted as controls. After 30 days, the same sections were photographed again under polarized light, and areas of the lesions were digitized quantitatively. Results demonstrated the mean (+/- SD) remineralization (mu m2) in Thoulet's 1.41 imbibition media to be: lesions adjacent to glass ionomer cement restorations, 2.45 +/- 170; lesions exposed to a fluoridated dentifrice, 223 +/- 102; lesions exposed to 0.05% sodium fluoride rinse, 374 +/- 120, and control lesions only exposed to artificial saliva, 101 +/- 69. Duncan's analysis indicated the fluoridated rinse to have significantly greater remineralization effects on adjacent caries than the other groups (p < or = 0.05). The glass ionomer restorative material and fluoridated dentifrice also had significantly greater remineralization effects on adjacent caries than the control, yet significantly less than the fluoridated rinse (p < or = 0.05).
Marinelli
C B
CB
Dows Institute for Dental Research, College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242, USA.
Donly
K J
KJ
Wefel
J S
JS
Jakobsen
J R
JR
Denehy
G E
GE
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D002327:Cariostatic Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000737:chemistry / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D003731:Dental Caries / Q000628:therapy; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000187:drug effects*; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000145:classification; D003802:Dentifrices / Q000627:therapeutic use; D005459:Fluorides / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000737:chemistry / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D005460:Fluorides, Topical / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000627:therapeutic use; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D008859:Microscopy, Polarization; D009067:Mouthwashes / Q000627:therapeutic use; D010784:Photomicrography; D012464:Saliva, Artificial / Q000737:chemistry; D012969:Sodium Fluoride / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000627:therapeutic use; D014089:Tooth Remineralization / Q000379:methods*
D002327:Cariostatic Agents; D003802:Dentifrices; D005460:Fluorides, Topical; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D009067:Mouthwashes; D012464:Saliva, Artificial; D012969:Sodium Fluoride; D005459:Fluorides