Archives of oral biology · 2023
Erosion-inhibiting and enamel rehardening effects of different types of saliva.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Boteon Ana Paula, Dos Santos Natália Mello, Lamana Larissa Di Bene Kandalaf, Rosa Isadora Messias Batista, Di Leone Camilla Cristina Lira, Caracho Rafaela Aparecida, Carvalho Thiago Saads, Honório Heitor Marques, Rios Daniela
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the effects of in situ saliva compared to in vitro human saliva, with or without mucin, on inhibiting erosion and promoting enamel rehardening.
DESIGN: Bovine enamel blocks were randomly distributed into groups (n = 23): Gsitu (human saliva in situ), Gvitro (collected human saliva) and GvitroM (collected human saliva with mucin). The enamel blocks underwent a 2-hour period for the formation of salivary pellicle, based on the assigned groups. Subsequently, they were subjected to three erosive cycles, each of them consisting of an erosive challenge (immersion in 0.65 % citric acid, pH 3.5, 1 min) and saliva exposure (immersion in situ or in vitro saliva for 2 h). Microhardness measurements were performed at each cycle, after each experimental step (erosive challenge and exposure to saliva).
RESULTS: After the first demineralization, in vitro saliva groups presented greater hardness loss, with no statistical difference between GVitroM and GVitro. After the third erosive demineralization the in situ saliva resulted in less hardness loss compared to the first demineralization. In relation to surface hardness recovery, there was no difference among types of saliva but there was a decrease in hardness as the cycles progressed.
CONCLUSION: Saliva groups had different behaviors between the first and third demineralization, being similar after the third cycle in terms of hardness loss. Regarding hardness recovery, all saliva promoted enamel gain, but there was a gradual decrease with the progression of the cycles.
DESIGN: Bovine enamel blocks were randomly distributed into groups (n = 23): Gsitu (human saliva in situ), Gvitro (collected human saliva) and GvitroM (collected human saliva with mucin). The enamel blocks underwent a 2-hour period for the formation of salivary pellicle, based on the assigned groups. Subsequently, they were subjected to three erosive cycles, each of them consisting of an erosive challenge (immersion in 0.65 % citric acid, pH 3.5, 1 min) and saliva exposure (immersion in situ or in vitro saliva for 2 h). Microhardness measurements were performed at each cycle, after each experimental step (erosive challenge and exposure to saliva).
RESULTS: After the first demineralization, in vitro saliva groups presented greater hardness loss, with no statistical difference between GVitroM and GVitro. After the third erosive demineralization the in situ saliva resulted in less hardness loss compared to the first demineralization. In relation to surface hardness recovery, there was no difference among types of saliva but there was a decrease in hardness as the cycles progressed.
CONCLUSION: Saliva groups had different behaviors between the first and third demineralization, being similar after the third cycle in terms of hardness loss. Regarding hardness recovery, all saliva promoted enamel gain, but there was a gradual decrease with the progression of the cycles.