Effect of phytosphingosine on staining resistance and microhardness of tooth enamel

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the protective effect of phytosphingosine (PHS) against staining on dental enamel. Materials and Methods: Ninety-six specimens of bovine teeth (6 mm × 6 mm × 2 mm) were cut, and initial color (Easyshade, VITA), microhardness (HMV-2, Shimadzu) and fluorescence (Matlabs software, Matworks) measurements were performed. Specimens were separated into four groups according to the treatments: Distilled water (control); Human saliva (HS); PHS; PHS + HS. Specimens (n = 6) were submitted to staining procedures: Distilled water (immersion for 30 days-control); Coffee (15 minutes, twice a day/for 15 days); Black tea (as described for Coffee) and cigarette smoke (20 cigarettes/sample). Final measurements were performed, and data were analyzed (Color-CIEDE2000, fluorescence-2-way ANOVA, Tukey, and microhardness-Kruskal-Wallis Dunn, P < .05). Results: Coffee caused the highest color change (ΔE 00), followed by black tea, regardless of the treatment employed. Distilled water and cigarette smoke produced similar color changes (P > .05) for the groups control (water = 1.0 + − 0.5/ cigarette = 2.3 0.3) and PHS (water = 0.8 0.4/ cigarette = 2.3 0.4). PHS + HS demonstrated intermediate means than PHS and HS when stained with coffee and tea. After treatments, the least fluorescence alterations occurred for the groups treated with distilled water and cigarette, regardless of the treatment, with no difference (P > .05) between them. There was a significant difference (P < .05) on microhardness between all the groups, as PHS + HS > PHS > HS > Distilled water. Conclusions: It was concluded that PHS treatment did not protect the staining of the enamel by coffee and tea, but increased the microhardness, both in the presence and absence of a salivary pellicle. Practical Implications: Phytoshingosine is a novel agent and considered a promising component for anti-biofilm and anti-erosion properties by the formation of a diffusion barrier on the dental enamel. In line, PHS might be considered for anti-staining purposes.

The effect of phytosphingosine associated with tooth brushing on color change, surface roughness, and microhardness of dental enamel — an in vitro and in situ study

“…with PHS, at different times of use, presented ΔE 00 values within the limit of perceptibility (0.80) established by the literature [30], different from the toothbrushing group, which showed values above this limit. In addition, all the tested groups, regardless of the period of use, revealed values below the limit of acceptability (1.80) [30].…”

“…with PHS, at different times of use, presented ΔE 00 values within the limit of perceptibility (0.80) established by the literature [30], different from the toothbrushing group, which showed values above this limit. In addition, all the tested groups, regardless of the period of use, revealed values below the limit of acceptability (1.80) [30]. This fact is important, as it shows that the PHS was able to protect the dental enamel from the color change, and therefore, can be considered safe to be tested in future stages, such as in situ and in vivo assessments.…”

“…K L , K C, and K H are the parametric factors according to different visualization parameters that were de ned as 1. The limits of perceptibility (0.8) and acceptability (1.8) were used to analyze the difference in color between groups [29,30].…”

Effect of tobacco and nicotine in causing staining of dental hard tissues and dental materials: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Seven studies assessed the effect of cigarette smoke/combusted tobacco particulate (CS extract) exposure on enamel or dentine (Alkhatib et al, 2005; Amorim et al, 2021; Dalrymple et al, 2018, 2021; Haiduc et al, 2020; Kobayashi et al, 2021; Ness et al, 1977). We pooled three studies with similar methodologies (Dalrymple et al, 2018, 2021; Haiduc et al, 2020) and found evidence that cigarette exposure caused a large change in color (increased staining), measured by $$\unicode{x02206}E$$, of enamel or dentine compared with a nonexposure control (mean difference [MD]: 16.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.11, 20.32; I 2 : 96%; Figure 2).…”

“…We pooled three studies with similar methodologies (Dalrymple et al, 2018, 2021; Haiduc et al, 2020) and found evidence that cigarette exposure caused a large change in color (increased staining), measured by $$\unicode{x02206}E$$, of enamel or dentine compared with a nonexposure control (mean difference [MD]: 16.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.11, 20.32; I 2 : 96%; Figure 2). Within the studies not included in the meta‐analysis, Amorim et al (2021) showed that cigarette smoke caused a much smaller change in color (CIELab E00) if compared to the mean difference, this was still above the limit of perceptibility and acceptability. However, Kobayashi et al (2021) showed that when estimated, cigarette smoke caused twice the color change (CIELab $$\unicode{x02206}E)$$ of a nonexposure control.…”