Effects of Erosive, Cariogenic or Combined Erosive/Cariogenic Challenges on Human Enamel An in situ/ex vivo Study

Individuals with cariogenic diet can also consume erosive beverages. Thus, it seems necessary to investigate a possible caries/erosion interaction. To test in situ/ex vivo a combination of these challenges, 11 subjects wore intraoral appliances containing four enamel blocks randomly assigned. In the first 2-week phase, the appliances were immersed in a cola drink 3 times/day. Two blocks were free of plaque (erosion only: EO) and two blocks were covered with plaque (erosion + plaque: EP). In the second 2-week phase, four new blocks were all covered with plaque and subjected to a sucrose solution 8 times/day. Among the four new blocks, two were also subjected to the cola drink 3 times/day (erosion + caries: EC) while the other two were not (caries only: CO). Thus, in EO, the specimens were fixed at the intraoral appliance level. In EP, EC and CO they were fixed 1.0 mm under the appliance level and covered with plastic meshes for dental plaque accumulation. Changes in wear and hardness were measured. Data were tested using ANOVA and Tukey`s test (p < 0.05). Mean values of wear (mu m) and change in hardness (kp/mm(2)) were: EO 4.82/310; EP 0.14/48; EC 0.34/245; CO 0.42/309. With respect to surface softening, EP and EC differed significantly from each other and from EO and CO, which did not differ significantly. EO presented significantly higher wear than the other groups. The data suggest that the presence of dental plaque can decrease the acid attack of an erosive drink and the association of erosive and cariogenic challenges showed less enamel alterations when compared to erosive or cariogenic challenges only. Copyright (C) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

Short-term in situ/ex vivo study of the anticariogenic potential of a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement associated with adhesive systems

Objective: As resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) is an adhesive material, its association to dentin bonding agents (DBAs) was previously proposed. This study investigated the adjunctive behavior of an RMGIC with etch-and-rinse bonding systems under in situ/ex vivo cariogenic challenge. Method and Materials: Bovine enamel blocks (3 3 2 mm) were randomly assigned to group VP, Vitremer + its own primer (3M ESPE); group VSB, Vitremer + Single Bond (3M ESPE); and group VPB, Vitremer + Prime & Bond 2.1 (Dentsply). Two blocks of each group were randomly placed in an acrylic palatal appliance, so each appliance included six blocks. Volunteers (n = 10) wore these appliances according to given instructions to promote a sucrose challenge eight times/day for 15 days. After this period, the blocks were removed from the devices and cleaned, and demineralization was assessed through longitudinal microhardness analysis (Knoop indenter, 25 g/5 s). Data were submitted to three-way ANOVA and Tukey test (P < .05). Results: No treatment was able to completely avoid demineralization. All materials showed a statistically significant difference in mineral loss when the microhardness on the outer enamel was compared with deeper regions (P < .05). Conclusion: Association of the tested RMGICs with etch-and-rinse DBAs did not seem to be more beneficial against caries than the conventional treatment with RMGIC. (Quintessence Int 2010; 41: e192-e199)

Comparison of GPX with or without solvent and hand files in removing filling materials from root canals-An ex vivo study

Objective. The aim of this study was to compare GPX instruments and hand files for gutta-percha removal. Study design. Fifty maxillary central incisors with a single straight canal were instrumented and filled. The teeth were divided into 5 groups of 10 specimens each, according to the gutta-percha removal techniques: group 1: GPX (21-mm-long teeth); group 2: GPX and xylol as solvent (21-mm-long teeth); group 3: GPX (25-mm-long teeth); group 4: GPX and xylol as solvent (25-mm-long teeth); and group 5: hand files and xylol as solvent. The amount of time for gutta-percha removal and the number of fractured instruments were evaluated. Radiographs were taken, and the teeth were grooved longitudinally and split. The area of residual debris was measured using Sigma Scan software. Results. The time for filling material removal was significantly shorter when GPX was used (P < .05). Overall, hand files and solvent produced fewer remnants of filling materials (P < .05). In the GPX 25 mm-long teeth group, the filling material was not removed in the apical third. Conclusions. Under the experimental conditions, the GPX instruments proved to be faster than hand instruments in removing root filling materials; however, hand instruments left a smaller amount of residual filling materials on the canal walls. The GPX instruments did not pull the gutta-percha beyond its tip. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 110: 675-680)