IADR Abstract Archives
Remineralization by Polyols and Casein Phosphopeptide – Amorphous Calcium Phosphate
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare remineralization of enamel subsurface lesions in vitro by xylitol, sorbitol, maltitol and mannitol in artificial saliva (AS) in the absence and presence of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP).
Methods: Subsurface enamel lesions were created in a total of 60 pre-sterilized enamel blocks by exposing the blocks to a carbopol-protected acid demineralization buffer. The blocks were sawn in two with one half-block stored (control) and the other half-block (test) exposed to one of the polyols in artificial saliva (AS). Six half-blocks, each containing two lesions were exposed to one of the ten solutions for seven days at 37oC with a change of solution each day. Each test half-block and its corresponding control half-block was then paired, embedded, sectioned and subjected to transverse microradiography to measure lesion depth and mineral content to calculate mean percent remineralization (%R). An F-test for equivalence of more than two groups followed by a series of two one-sided tests for equivalence with a Bonferroni correction was used for the acceptance of equivalence.
Results: There was no significant difference between AS alone and AS with any of the polyols, and between AS solutions containing CPP-ACP with either xylitol, sorbitol, maltitol or mannitol and the AS solution containing CPP-ACP alone, with respect to their ability to remineralize enamel subsurface lesions. All AS solutions containing CPP-ACP with or without a polyol significantly enhanced remineralization of enamel subsurface lesions compared with the AS solution alone (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the AS solutions either AS alone or those containing either xylitol, sorbitol, maltitol or mannitol were equivalent (p < 0.05) with respect to their ability to remineralize enamel subsurface lesions, in vitro. None of the polyols including xylitol contributed to, or affected, the remineralization of enamel subsurface lesions observed in this study.
Methods: Subsurface enamel lesions were created in a total of 60 pre-sterilized enamel blocks by exposing the blocks to a carbopol-protected acid demineralization buffer. The blocks were sawn in two with one half-block stored (control) and the other half-block (test) exposed to one of the polyols in artificial saliva (AS). Six half-blocks, each containing two lesions were exposed to one of the ten solutions for seven days at 37oC with a change of solution each day. Each test half-block and its corresponding control half-block was then paired, embedded, sectioned and subjected to transverse microradiography to measure lesion depth and mineral content to calculate mean percent remineralization (%R). An F-test for equivalence of more than two groups followed by a series of two one-sided tests for equivalence with a Bonferroni correction was used for the acceptance of equivalence.
Results: There was no significant difference between AS alone and AS with any of the polyols, and between AS solutions containing CPP-ACP with either xylitol, sorbitol, maltitol or mannitol and the AS solution containing CPP-ACP alone, with respect to their ability to remineralize enamel subsurface lesions. All AS solutions containing CPP-ACP with or without a polyol significantly enhanced remineralization of enamel subsurface lesions compared with the AS solution alone (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the AS solutions either AS alone or those containing either xylitol, sorbitol, maltitol or mannitol were equivalent (p < 0.05) with respect to their ability to remineralize enamel subsurface lesions, in vitro. None of the polyols including xylitol contributed to, or affected, the remineralization of enamel subsurface lesions observed in this study.