We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Three-dimensional in vitro measurements of tooth wear using fluoridated dentifrices.
Australian Dental Journal 2016 September
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare differences in wear of human enamel and dentine in vitro using a 3D measurement method comparing silica versus non-silica containing fluoridated dentifrices (Colgate Total(™) [CT] or Fluor Protector Gel(™) [FPG]).
METHODS: Mounted native enamel (n = 36) and polished dentine (n = 36) samples were subjected to 10 wear cycles. Each cycle consisted of: (1) 1 hour remineralization in artificial saliva (AS); (2) 10 minute erosion (0.3% citric acid; pH = 2.8); (3) 2 minute toothbrush abrasion in AS (G1, control) or a slurry of 3:1 by weight of AS:dentifrice (G2 = CT; G3 = FPG) under a load of 2 N. Each group contained 12 enamel and 12 dentine samples. Paired pre- and post-wear scans made with a contacting scanner were digitally superimposed using ball bearings as datum.
RESULTS: Mean and (SD) enamel wear was G1 = 21.9 μm (6.4); G2 = 15.2 μm (2.8); G3 = 16.9 μm (3.2). Enamel wear was not different between dentifrices (p = 0.99). Both dentifrices resulted in less enamel wear compared to the control (p < 0.05). Dentine wear was G1 = 41.3 μm (8.1); G2 = 29.1 μm (4.4); G3 = 22.1 μm (3.5). Differences in measurements were observed between dentifrices and control (p < 0.05) and between dentifrices (p = 0.014) with FPG showing less dentine wear than CT.
CONCLUSIONS: FPG offered protection against erosive/abrasive tooth wear in dentine compared to CT. FPG did not offer such protective effect on enamel wear.
METHODS: Mounted native enamel (n = 36) and polished dentine (n = 36) samples were subjected to 10 wear cycles. Each cycle consisted of: (1) 1 hour remineralization in artificial saliva (AS); (2) 10 minute erosion (0.3% citric acid; pH = 2.8); (3) 2 minute toothbrush abrasion in AS (G1, control) or a slurry of 3:1 by weight of AS:dentifrice (G2 = CT; G3 = FPG) under a load of 2 N. Each group contained 12 enamel and 12 dentine samples. Paired pre- and post-wear scans made with a contacting scanner were digitally superimposed using ball bearings as datum.
RESULTS: Mean and (SD) enamel wear was G1 = 21.9 μm (6.4); G2 = 15.2 μm (2.8); G3 = 16.9 μm (3.2). Enamel wear was not different between dentifrices (p = 0.99). Both dentifrices resulted in less enamel wear compared to the control (p < 0.05). Dentine wear was G1 = 41.3 μm (8.1); G2 = 29.1 μm (4.4); G3 = 22.1 μm (3.5). Differences in measurements were observed between dentifrices and control (p < 0.05) and between dentifrices (p = 0.014) with FPG showing less dentine wear than CT.
CONCLUSIONS: FPG offered protection against erosive/abrasive tooth wear in dentine compared to CT. FPG did not offer such protective effect on enamel wear.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app