IADR Abstract Archives
Enamel Loss From Contact With Over-The-Counter Palliative Sialagogues
Objectives: To compare in vitro human enamel loss upon exposure to variety of over-the-counter, palliative sialagogue (OPS) products.
Methods: The pH of commercial OPS products (2 liquid* and 4 lozenges**) were measured (Table): TheraBreath Oral Rinse* (TBOR); Mouth Kote Spray* (MKS); Oral Relief Lozenches** (ORL); Ludens Lozenge** (LL); Hyaluronic Acid Lozenge** (HAL); Mighty TeaFlow Lozenge** (MTFL); and phosphate buffered saline (control). Liquid products were use as received, lozenges were dissolved in deionized water (1:5 ratio). Freshly extracted human teeth were obtained, embedded in epoxy, and enamel surfaces were exposed through sequential wet-grinding a final 1000 grit SiC finish. Two 300µm-deep dimples were made in epoxy, 10-mm apart, between an area of polished enamel. Baseline surface profile scans were made (Form Talysurf), after which specimens (n=5/group) were immersed in the solutions for 2-h (short-term). Surface scans were repeated through the dimple areas, specimens were re-immersed for an additional 10h (12h exposure – long-term), following by final surface profile scans. Average enamel loss (microns) over a 5-mm long length between the dimples was determined by digital subtraction of the 2- and 12-h specimen profiles from that of the pre-immersion baseline. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures, 2-factor ANOVA and the Tukey post-hoc test, alpha of 0.05
Results: Table presents results. Enamel loss for TBOR, HAL, and MTFL were lowest and did not statistically differ within or between either time element, or from the PBS control. MKS displayed the highest enamel loss, both at 2- and 12-hour immersion times, while loss of LL and ORL did not differ at 2-hours, but LL showed significantly greater loss than ORL after 12 hours.
Conclusions: There is a great variety of enamel loss from contact with popular OPS products during both short and long-term exposure, with products of pH<3.0 demonstrating significantly greater surface dissolution than others.
Methods: The pH of commercial OPS products (2 liquid* and 4 lozenges**) were measured (Table): TheraBreath Oral Rinse* (TBOR); Mouth Kote Spray* (MKS); Oral Relief Lozenches** (ORL); Ludens Lozenge** (LL); Hyaluronic Acid Lozenge** (HAL); Mighty TeaFlow Lozenge** (MTFL); and phosphate buffered saline (control). Liquid products were use as received, lozenges were dissolved in deionized water (1:5 ratio). Freshly extracted human teeth were obtained, embedded in epoxy, and enamel surfaces were exposed through sequential wet-grinding a final 1000 grit SiC finish. Two 300µm-deep dimples were made in epoxy, 10-mm apart, between an area of polished enamel. Baseline surface profile scans were made (Form Talysurf), after which specimens (n=5/group) were immersed in the solutions for 2-h (short-term). Surface scans were repeated through the dimple areas, specimens were re-immersed for an additional 10h (12h exposure – long-term), following by final surface profile scans. Average enamel loss (microns) over a 5-mm long length between the dimples was determined by digital subtraction of the 2- and 12-h specimen profiles from that of the pre-immersion baseline. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures, 2-factor ANOVA and the Tukey post-hoc test, alpha of 0.05
Results: Table presents results. Enamel loss for TBOR, HAL, and MTFL were lowest and did not statistically differ within or between either time element, or from the PBS control. MKS displayed the highest enamel loss, both at 2- and 12-hour immersion times, while loss of LL and ORL did not differ at 2-hours, but LL showed significantly greater loss than ORL after 12 hours.
Conclusions: There is a great variety of enamel loss from contact with popular OPS products during both short and long-term exposure, with products of pH<3.0 demonstrating significantly greater surface dissolution than others.