No abstract

This finding will help researchers in the development of erosion studies, which will provide information for dentists to offer a better treatment for erosion.

This in situ study assessed the effect of different times of salivary exposure on the rehardening of acid-softened enamel. Bovine enamel blocks were subjected in vitro to a short-term acidic exposure by immersion in 0.05 M (pH 2.5) citric acid for 30 s, resulting in surface softening. Then, 40 selected eroded enamel blocks were randomly assigned to 10 volunteers. Intraoral palatal appliances containing 4 enamel blocks were constructed for each volunteer, who wore the appliance for 12 nonconsecutive hours: initial 30 min, followed by an additional 30, and then by an additional 1 hour. For the last additional 10 hours the appliances were used at night, during the volunteers' sleep. Surface hardness was analyzed in the same blocks at baseline, after erosion and after each period of salivary exposure, enabling percentage of surface hardness recovery calculation (%SHR). The data were tested using repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Increasing periods of salivary action promoted a progressive increase in the surface hardness (p < 0.001). However a similar degree of enamel rehardening (p = 0.641) was observed between 2 hours (49.9%) and 12 hours (53.3%) of salivary exposure. Two hours of salivary exposure seems to be appropriate for partial rehardening of the softened enamel surface. The use of the intraoral appliance during sleep did not improve the enamel rehardening after erosion.

This study investigated the effect of the period of use and location of intraoral appliances on enamel surface loss. This randomized, single blind in situ study was conducted in 2 crossover phases based on the period of use, in which maxillary and mandibular appliances were simultaneously worn. Bovine enamel blocks (n = 120) were randomly divided among the studied groups by surface hardness. In each phase, fifteen volunteers used one maxillary appliance and two mandibular appliances for 5 days. Erosive challenge was performed 4X/day by immersion in 0.01 M HCL for 2 minutes. In the continuous phase, the intraoral appliances were worn for 20 hours. In the intermittent phase the appliances were worn for 8 hours and 30 minutes. Enamel loss was determined profilometrically. The discomfort of use of the appliances were evaluated in a questionnaire. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA/Tukey’s test and chi-square test (p<0.05). The maxillary appliance promoted higher enamel loss compared to the mandibular one (p<0.001). Intermittent use of appliances resulted in similar enamel loss to the continuous one (p = 0.686). All volunteers preferred to use the maxillary appliance in an intermittent regimen. The intermittent use of maxillary appliance is a simplified reliable protocol appropriated for in situ erosion studies in enamel.

The standardization of in situ protocols for dental erosion is important to enable comparison between studies. Objective: Thus, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the influence of the location of in situ intraoral appliance (mandibular X palatal) on the extent of enamel loss induced by erosive challenges and to evaluate the comfort of the appliances. Material and Methods: One hundred and sixty bovine enamel blocks were selected according to their initial surface hardness and randomly divided into two groups: GI - palatal appliance and GII - mandibular appliance. Twenty volunteers wore simultaneously one palatal appliance (containing 4 enamel blocks) and two mandibular appliances (each one containing 2 enamel blocks). Four times per day during 5 days, the volunteers immersed their appliances in 0.01 M hydrochloric acid for 2 minutes, washed and reinserted them into the oral cavity for 2 hours until the next erosive challenge. After the end of the in situ phase, the volunteers answered a questionnaire regarding the comfort of the appliances. The loss of tissue in the enamel blocks was determined profilometrically. Data were statistically analyzed by paired t-test, Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test (p<0.05). Results: The enamel blocks allocated in palatal appliances (GI) presented significantly higher erosive wear when compared to the blocks fixed in mandibular appliances (GII). The volunteers reported more comfort when using the palatal appliance. Conclusions: Therefore, the palatal appliance is more comfortable and resulted in higher enamel loss compared to the mandibular one.