Influence of Toothbrushing on the Antierosive Effect of Film-Forming Agents

Taís Scaramucci, Samira Helena João-Souza, Frank Lippert, George J. Eckert, Idalina V. Aoki, Anderson Hara

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study evaluated the influence of toothbrushing on the antierosive effect of solutions containing sodium fluoride (225 ppm/F), stannous chloride (800 ppm/Sn), sodium linear polyphosphate (2%/LPP), and their combinations, and deionized water as negative control (C). Solutions were tested in a 5-day erosion-remineralization-abrasion cycling model, using enamel and dentin specimens (n = 8). Erosion was performed 6 times/day for 5 min, exposure to the test solutions 3 times/day for 2min, and toothbrushing (or not) with toothpaste slurry 2 times/day for 2 min (45 strokes). Surface loss (SL) was determined by noncontact profilometry. Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Brushing caused more SL than no brushing for enamel (mean ± SD, in micrometers: 52.7 ± 6.6 and 33.0 ± 4.5, respectively), but not for dentin (28.2 ± 1.9 and 26.6 ± 1.8, respectively). For enamel without brushing, F+LPP+Sn showed the lowest SL (23.8 ± 3.4), followed by F+Sn (30.6 ± 4.9) and F+LPP (31.7 ± 1.7), which did not differ from each other. No differences were found between the other groups and C (37.8 ± 2.1). When brushing, F+LPP+Sn exhibited the lowest SL (36.7 ± 2.4), not differing from F+LPP (39.1 ± 1.8). F, F+Sn and LPP+Sn were similar (46.7 ± 2.9, 42.1 ± 2.8 and 45.3 ± 4.6, respectively) and better than C (52.7 ± 4.3). Sn (55.0 ± 2.4) and LPP (51.0 ± 4.3) did not differ from C. For dentin, neither groups differed from C, regardless of brushing. In conclusion, toothbrushing did not affect the antierosive effect of F+Sn, F+LPP and F+LPP+Sn on enamel, although overall it led to more erosion than nonbrushing. F and LPP+Sn showed a protective effect only under brushing conditions, whereas Sn and LPP did not exhibit any protection. For dentin, neither toothbrushing nor the test solutions influenced the development of erosion.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)104-110
Number of pages7
JournalCaries Research
Volume50
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2016

Fingerprint

Toothbrushing
Dentin
Dental Enamel
Toothpastes
Polyphosphates
Sodium Fluoride
Analysis of Variance
Sodium
Stroke
Water

Keywords

  • Dental erosion
  • Fluoride
  • Phosphate polymer
  • Saliva
  • Stannous chloride
  • Toothbrushing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Influence of Toothbrushing on the Antierosive Effect of Film-Forming Agents. / Scaramucci, Taís; João-Souza, Samira Helena; Lippert, Frank; Eckert, George J.; Aoki, Idalina V.; Hara, Anderson.

In: Caries Research, Vol. 50, No. 2, 01.05.2016, p. 104-110.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Scaramucci, Taís ; João-Souza, Samira Helena ; Lippert, Frank ; Eckert, George J. ; Aoki, Idalina V. ; Hara, Anderson. / Influence of Toothbrushing on the Antierosive Effect of Film-Forming Agents. In: Caries Research. 2016 ; Vol. 50, No. 2. pp. 104-110.
@article{358d3fbba8b6400384dd50414ce81834,
title = "Influence of Toothbrushing on the Antierosive Effect of Film-Forming Agents",
abstract = "This study evaluated the influence of toothbrushing on the antierosive effect of solutions containing sodium fluoride (225 ppm/F), stannous chloride (800 ppm/Sn), sodium linear polyphosphate (2{\%}/LPP), and their combinations, and deionized water as negative control (C). Solutions were tested in a 5-day erosion-remineralization-abrasion cycling model, using enamel and dentin specimens (n = 8). Erosion was performed 6 times/day for 5 min, exposure to the test solutions 3 times/day for 2min, and toothbrushing (or not) with toothpaste slurry 2 times/day for 2 min (45 strokes). Surface loss (SL) was determined by noncontact profilometry. Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Brushing caused more SL than no brushing for enamel (mean ± SD, in micrometers: 52.7 ± 6.6 and 33.0 ± 4.5, respectively), but not for dentin (28.2 ± 1.9 and 26.6 ± 1.8, respectively). For enamel without brushing, F+LPP+Sn showed the lowest SL (23.8 ± 3.4), followed by F+Sn (30.6 ± 4.9) and F+LPP (31.7 ± 1.7), which did not differ from each other. No differences were found between the other groups and C (37.8 ± 2.1). When brushing, F+LPP+Sn exhibited the lowest SL (36.7 ± 2.4), not differing from F+LPP (39.1 ± 1.8). F, F+Sn and LPP+Sn were similar (46.7 ± 2.9, 42.1 ± 2.8 and 45.3 ± 4.6, respectively) and better than C (52.7 ± 4.3). Sn (55.0 ± 2.4) and LPP (51.0 ± 4.3) did not differ from C. For dentin, neither groups differed from C, regardless of brushing. In conclusion, toothbrushing did not affect the antierosive effect of F+Sn, F+LPP and F+LPP+Sn on enamel, although overall it led to more erosion than nonbrushing. F and LPP+Sn showed a protective effect only under brushing conditions, whereas Sn and LPP did not exhibit any protection. For dentin, neither toothbrushing nor the test solutions influenced the development of erosion.",
keywords = "Dental erosion, Fluoride, Phosphate polymer, Saliva, Stannous chloride, Toothbrushing",
author = "Ta{\'i}s Scaramucci and Jo{\~a}o-Souza, {Samira Helena} and Frank Lippert and Eckert, {George J.} and Aoki, {Idalina V.} and Anderson Hara",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1159/000443619",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "104--110",
journal = "Caries Research",
issn = "0008-6568",
publisher = "S. Karger AG",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of Toothbrushing on the Antierosive Effect of Film-Forming Agents

AU - Scaramucci, Taís

AU - João-Souza, Samira Helena

AU - Lippert, Frank

AU - Eckert, George J.

AU - Aoki, Idalina V.

AU - Hara, Anderson

PY - 2016/5/1

Y1 - 2016/5/1

N2 - This study evaluated the influence of toothbrushing on the antierosive effect of solutions containing sodium fluoride (225 ppm/F), stannous chloride (800 ppm/Sn), sodium linear polyphosphate (2%/LPP), and their combinations, and deionized water as negative control (C). Solutions were tested in a 5-day erosion-remineralization-abrasion cycling model, using enamel and dentin specimens (n = 8). Erosion was performed 6 times/day for 5 min, exposure to the test solutions 3 times/day for 2min, and toothbrushing (or not) with toothpaste slurry 2 times/day for 2 min (45 strokes). Surface loss (SL) was determined by noncontact profilometry. Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Brushing caused more SL than no brushing for enamel (mean ± SD, in micrometers: 52.7 ± 6.6 and 33.0 ± 4.5, respectively), but not for dentin (28.2 ± 1.9 and 26.6 ± 1.8, respectively). For enamel without brushing, F+LPP+Sn showed the lowest SL (23.8 ± 3.4), followed by F+Sn (30.6 ± 4.9) and F+LPP (31.7 ± 1.7), which did not differ from each other. No differences were found between the other groups and C (37.8 ± 2.1). When brushing, F+LPP+Sn exhibited the lowest SL (36.7 ± 2.4), not differing from F+LPP (39.1 ± 1.8). F, F+Sn and LPP+Sn were similar (46.7 ± 2.9, 42.1 ± 2.8 and 45.3 ± 4.6, respectively) and better than C (52.7 ± 4.3). Sn (55.0 ± 2.4) and LPP (51.0 ± 4.3) did not differ from C. For dentin, neither groups differed from C, regardless of brushing. In conclusion, toothbrushing did not affect the antierosive effect of F+Sn, F+LPP and F+LPP+Sn on enamel, although overall it led to more erosion than nonbrushing. F and LPP+Sn showed a protective effect only under brushing conditions, whereas Sn and LPP did not exhibit any protection. For dentin, neither toothbrushing nor the test solutions influenced the development of erosion.

AB - This study evaluated the influence of toothbrushing on the antierosive effect of solutions containing sodium fluoride (225 ppm/F), stannous chloride (800 ppm/Sn), sodium linear polyphosphate (2%/LPP), and their combinations, and deionized water as negative control (C). Solutions were tested in a 5-day erosion-remineralization-abrasion cycling model, using enamel and dentin specimens (n = 8). Erosion was performed 6 times/day for 5 min, exposure to the test solutions 3 times/day for 2min, and toothbrushing (or not) with toothpaste slurry 2 times/day for 2 min (45 strokes). Surface loss (SL) was determined by noncontact profilometry. Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Brushing caused more SL than no brushing for enamel (mean ± SD, in micrometers: 52.7 ± 6.6 and 33.0 ± 4.5, respectively), but not for dentin (28.2 ± 1.9 and 26.6 ± 1.8, respectively). For enamel without brushing, F+LPP+Sn showed the lowest SL (23.8 ± 3.4), followed by F+Sn (30.6 ± 4.9) and F+LPP (31.7 ± 1.7), which did not differ from each other. No differences were found between the other groups and C (37.8 ± 2.1). When brushing, F+LPP+Sn exhibited the lowest SL (36.7 ± 2.4), not differing from F+LPP (39.1 ± 1.8). F, F+Sn and LPP+Sn were similar (46.7 ± 2.9, 42.1 ± 2.8 and 45.3 ± 4.6, respectively) and better than C (52.7 ± 4.3). Sn (55.0 ± 2.4) and LPP (51.0 ± 4.3) did not differ from C. For dentin, neither groups differed from C, regardless of brushing. In conclusion, toothbrushing did not affect the antierosive effect of F+Sn, F+LPP and F+LPP+Sn on enamel, although overall it led to more erosion than nonbrushing. F and LPP+Sn showed a protective effect only under brushing conditions, whereas Sn and LPP did not exhibit any protection. For dentin, neither toothbrushing nor the test solutions influenced the development of erosion.

KW - Dental erosion

KW - Fluoride

KW - Phosphate polymer

KW - Saliva

KW - Stannous chloride

KW - Toothbrushing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84973502224&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84973502224&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1159/000443619

DO - 10.1159/000443619

M3 - Article

C2 - 26930495

AN - SCOPUS:84973502224

VL - 50

SP - 104

EP - 110

JO - Caries Research

JF - Caries Research

SN - 0008-6568

IS - 2

ER -