Dietary Fluoride Intake by Children Receiving Different Sources of Systemic Fluoride

There has been no comparison of fluoride (F) intake by pre-school children receiving more traditional sources of systemic F. The aim of this study was to estimate the dietary F intake by children receiving F from artificially fluoridated water (AFW-Brazil, 0.6-0.8 mg F/L), naturally fluoridated water (NFW-Brazil, 0.6-0.9 mg F/L), fluoridated salt (FS-Peru, 180-200 mg F/Kg), and fluoridated milk (FM-Peru, 0.25 mg F). Children (n = 21-26) aged 4-6 yrs old participated in each community. A non-fluoridated community (NoF) was evaluated as the control population. Dietary F intake was monitored by the ""duplicate plate"" method, with different constituents (water, other beverages, and solids). F was analyzed with an ion-selective electrode. Data were tested by Kruskall-Wallis and Dunn`s tests (p < 0.05). Mean (+/- SD) F intake (mg/Kg b.w./day) was 0.04 +/- 0.01(b), 0.06 +/- 0.02(a,b), 0.05 +/- 0.02(a,b), 0.06 +/- 0.01(a), and 0.01 +/- 0.00(c) for AFW/NFW/FS/FM/NoF, respectively. The main dietary contributors for AFW/NFW and FS/FM/NoF were water and solids, respectively. The results indicate that the dietary F intake must be considered before a systemic method of fluoridation is implemented.

Comparison of Cross-Sectional Hardness and Transverse Microradiography of Artificial Carious Enamel Lesions Induced by Different Demineralising Solutions and Gels

The aims of this study were: (1) to correlate surface (SH) and cross-sectional hardness (CSH) with microradiographic parameters of artificial enamel lesions; (2) to compare lesions prepared by different protocols. Fifty bovine enamel specimens were allocated by stratified randomisation according to their initial SH values to five groups and lesions produced by different methods: MC gel (methylcellulose gel/lactic acid, pH 4.6, 14 days); PA gel (polyacrylic acid/lactic acid/hydroxyapatite, pH 4.8, 16 h); MHDP (undersaturated lactate buffer/methyl diphosphonate, pH 5.0, 6 days); buffer (undersaturated acetate buffer/fluoride, pH 5.0, 16 h), and pH cycling (7 days). SH of the lesions (SH(1)) was measured. The specimens were longitudinally sectioned and transverse microradiography (TMR) and CSH measured at 10- to 220-mu m depth from the surface. Overall, there was a medium correlation but non-linear and variable relationship between mineral content and root CSH. root SH(1) was weakly to moderately correlated with surface layer properties, weakly correlated with lesion depth but uncorrelated with integrated mineral loss. MHDP lesions showed the highest subsurface mineral loss, followed by pH cycling, buffer, PA gel and MC gel lesions. The conclusions were: (1) CSH, as an alternative to TMR, does not estimate mineral content very accurately, but gives information about mechanical properties of lesions; (2) SH should not be used to analyse lesions; (3) artificial caries lesions produced by the protocols differ, especially considering the method of analysis. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel

Class I malocclusion treatment: Influence of a missing mandibular incisor on anterior guidance

This case report describes the orthodontic treatment of a patient with a deep-overbite Angle Class I malocclusion, agenesis of a mandibular central incisor, and 2 supernumerary teeth, which caused impaction of the mandibular first premolars. The 15-year-old patient also had a convex profile, maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion, and deficiency of space for the correct alignment of teeth. Therefore, treatment consisted of fixed appliance therapy, cervical headgear, extraction of the supernumeraries and the mandibular and maxillary first premolars, and mesiodistal reduction of the maxillary incisors to solve the arch perimeter discrepancy as much as possible with interproximal stripping. This method of treatment significantly improved the patient`s facial and dental esthetics and provided a good functional occlusion, despite the absence of a mandibular incisor, which generally impairs achieving adequate incisal guidance. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:109-17)