Potential of different fluoride gels to prevent erosive tooth wear caused by gastroesophageal reflux.
Dental erosion
Erosion protection
Erosive tooth wear
Fluoride gel
Gastroesophageal reflux disease
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 04 2021
09 04 2021
Historique:
received:
16
12
2020
accepted:
24
03
2021
entrez:
10
4
2021
pubmed:
11
4
2021
medline:
27
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This in-vitro-study aimed to evaluate the potential of different fluoride gels to prevent gastroesophageal reflux induced erosive tooth wear. Surface baseline profiles of a total of 50 bovine enamel specimens [randomly assigned to five groups (G1-5)] were recorded. All specimens were positioned in a custom made artificial oral cavity and perfused with artificial saliva (0.5 ml/min). Reflux was simulated 11 times a day during 12 h by adding HCl (pH 3.0) for 30 s (flow rate 2 ml/min). During the remaining 12 h (overnight), specimens were stored in artificial saliva and brushed twice a day (morning and evening) with a toothbrush and toothpaste slurry (15 brushing strokes). While specimens in the control group (G1) did not receive any further treatment, specimens in G2-5 were coated with different fluoride gels [Elmex Gelée (G2); Paro Amin Fluor Gelée (G3); Paro Fluor Gelée Natriumfluorid (G4); Sensodyne ProSchmelz Fluorid Gelée (G5)] in the evening for 30 s. After 20 days, surface profiles were recorded again and enamel loss was determined by comparing them with the baseline profiles. The results were statistically analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey`s HSD post-hoc test. The overall highest mean wear of enamel (9.88 ± 1.73 µm) was observed in the control group (G1), where no fluoride gel was applied. It was significantly higher (p < 0.001) compared to all other groups. G2 (5.03 ± 1.43 µm), G3 (5.47 ± 0.63 µm, p = 0.918) and G4 (5.14 ± 0.82 µm, p > 0.999) showed the overall best protection from hydrochloric acid induced erosion. Enamel wear in G5 (6.64 ± 0.86 µm) was significantly higher compared to G2 (p = 0.028) and G4 (p = 0.047). After 20 days of daily application, all investigated fluoride gels are able to significantly reduce gastroesophageal reflux induced loss of enamel.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This in-vitro-study aimed to evaluate the potential of different fluoride gels to prevent gastroesophageal reflux induced erosive tooth wear.
METHODS
Surface baseline profiles of a total of 50 bovine enamel specimens [randomly assigned to five groups (G1-5)] were recorded. All specimens were positioned in a custom made artificial oral cavity and perfused with artificial saliva (0.5 ml/min). Reflux was simulated 11 times a day during 12 h by adding HCl (pH 3.0) for 30 s (flow rate 2 ml/min). During the remaining 12 h (overnight), specimens were stored in artificial saliva and brushed twice a day (morning and evening) with a toothbrush and toothpaste slurry (15 brushing strokes). While specimens in the control group (G1) did not receive any further treatment, specimens in G2-5 were coated with different fluoride gels [Elmex Gelée (G2); Paro Amin Fluor Gelée (G3); Paro Fluor Gelée Natriumfluorid (G4); Sensodyne ProSchmelz Fluorid Gelée (G5)] in the evening for 30 s. After 20 days, surface profiles were recorded again and enamel loss was determined by comparing them with the baseline profiles. The results were statistically analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey`s HSD post-hoc test.
RESULTS
The overall highest mean wear of enamel (9.88 ± 1.73 µm) was observed in the control group (G1), where no fluoride gel was applied. It was significantly higher (p < 0.001) compared to all other groups. G2 (5.03 ± 1.43 µm), G3 (5.47 ± 0.63 µm, p = 0.918) and G4 (5.14 ± 0.82 µm, p > 0.999) showed the overall best protection from hydrochloric acid induced erosion. Enamel wear in G5 (6.64 ± 0.86 µm) was significantly higher compared to G2 (p = 0.028) and G4 (p = 0.047).
CONCLUSIONS
After 20 days of daily application, all investigated fluoride gels are able to significantly reduce gastroesophageal reflux induced loss of enamel.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33836740
doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01548-6
pii: 10.1186/s12903-021-01548-6
pmc: PMC8035727
doi:
Substances chimiques
Gels
0
Sodium Fluoride
8ZYQ1474W7
Fluorides
Q80VPU408O
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
183Références
Adv Dent Res. 1995 Nov;9(3):175-93; discussion 194-7
pubmed: 8615942
J Physiol. 1951 May;113(4):419-24
pubmed: 14851247
J Dent. 2016 Sep;52:45-9
pubmed: 27396612
J Dent. 2005 Mar;33(3):243-52
pubmed: 15725524
Caries Res. 2010;44(4):358-63
pubmed: 20668377
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep;34(9):1563-1570
pubmed: 30597598
J Can Dent Assoc. 2003 Feb;69(2):84-9
pubmed: 12559056
Monogr Oral Sci. 2011;22:158-170
pubmed: 21701198
Quintessence Int. 2016 Apr;47(4):275-8
pubmed: 27022647
J Dent. 2009 Aug;37(8):591-5
pubmed: 19403228
Clin Oral Investig. 2009 Dec;13(4):473-8
pubmed: 19214602
Caries Res. 1978;12 Suppl 1:94-102
pubmed: 277298
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun;5(6):616-624
pubmed: 32416862
J Oral Rehabil. 1996 May;23(5):289-97
pubmed: 8736440
Caries Res. 2020;54(2):127-133
pubmed: 31910423
Curr Oral Health Rep. 2015;2(4):212-217
pubmed: 26523247
Clujul Med. 2018 Oct;91(4):387-390
pubmed: 30564013
J Appl Oral Sci. 2012 Sep-Oct;20(5):493-502
pubmed: 23138733
J Dent Res. 2007 May;86(5):410-5
pubmed: 17452559
Caries Res. 2006;40(2):148-53
pubmed: 16508273
Eur J Oral Sci. 2003 Jun;111(3):253-7
pubmed: 12786957
Caries Res. 2011;45 Suppl 1:53-9
pubmed: 21625133
Caries Res. 2000 Jan-Feb;34(1):48-52
pubmed: 10601784
Eur J Oral Sci. 2009 Aug;117(4):427-34
pubmed: 19627355
Caries Res. 2007;41(1):56-60
pubmed: 17167260
Br Dent J. 1995 Jun 10;178(11):407-12
pubmed: 7599013
J Oral Rehabil. 2001 Nov;28(11):1045-7
pubmed: 11722721
Dtsch Zahnarztl Z. 1982 Oct;37(10):836-40
pubmed: 6958450
Am J Dent. 2008 Feb;21(1):13-6
pubmed: 18435369
Braz Oral Res. 2016 Oct 10;30(1):e104
pubmed: 27737358
Eur J Oral Sci. 2005 Dec;113(6):505-11
pubmed: 16324141
Caries Res. 2015;49 Suppl 1:18-29
pubmed: 25871415
Acta Odontol Scand. 2007 Oct;65(5):298-305
pubmed: 18092202
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003 Mar;13(2):98-105
pubmed: 12605627
Oral Health Prev Dent. 2003;1(4):245-53
pubmed: 15643752
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000 Mar;89(3):312-5
pubmed: 10710455
Monogr Oral Sci. 2011;22:20-36
pubmed: 21701189
Arch Oral Biol. 1963 Mar-Apr;8:167-77
pubmed: 14016160
Caries Res. 2010;44(2):135-40
pubmed: 20357443
Int Dent J. 2005;55(4 Suppl 1):285-90
pubmed: 16167607
Calcif Tissue Int. 1979 Nov 6;28(3):227-31
pubmed: 116736
Oral Health Prev Dent. 2020;18(1):53-60
pubmed: 32051971
J Dent Res. 1990 Feb;69 Spec No:575-80; discussion 634-6
pubmed: 2179316
Eur J Oral Sci. 2007 Oct;115(5):390-6
pubmed: 17850428
Clin Oral Investig. 2010 Apr;14(2):201-5
pubmed: 19452177
Caries Res. 2011;45 Suppl 1:2-12
pubmed: 21625128
J Dent. 2010 Oct;38(10):782-7
pubmed: 20600557
Caries Res. 2008;42(1):2-7
pubmed: 18042984
Arch Oral Biol. 2001 Aug;46(8):697-703
pubmed: 11389861
Caries Res. 1999;33(2):135-9
pubmed: 9892781