Fluoride Dose-response of a Modified In situ caries Model
Objectives: Evaluate the fluoride (F) dose-response of 0/250/500/1100 ppm F of our standard in situ model (SM) involving human enamel specimens with a modified model (MM) involving bovine enamel specimens. Methods: In this single-center, randomized, double-blind, four-way-crossover-design in situ study, healthy subjects (n=27) wore intra-oral partial denture appliances containing four gauze-covered partially-demineralized enamel specimens: two 4×4 mm human enamel specimens placed in the subject’s partial denture buccal flange area (SM); two 4 mm round bovine enamel specimens placed in a denture tooth location on the same side of the partial denture (MM). Subjects applied their assigned dentifrice by brushing for 1 min 2 x day: NaF/silica/toothpaste with either 0 ppm F, 250 ppm F (dose-response control), 500 ppm F (dose-response control), or 1100 ppm F (positive control). Enamel specimens were removed after 14-day intra-oral exposure. Outcome measures assessed were: % surface microhardness recovery (%SMHR), net acid resistance (NAR), comparative acid resistance (CAR), enamel fluoride uptake (EFU), transverse microradiography (TMR Delta Z; TMR L). Results: Nothing was statistically significant for the MM vs SM comparisons. Models were equivalent for TMR L (any F level), TMR Delta Z at 250 ppm F, %SMHR, NAR and CAR (0 and 250 ppm F). MM performed in a similar manner to SM for the key outcome measures (%SMHR and EFU) and in general appears to have greater sensitivity to distinguish the effects of F for all outcome measures. Conclusions: The modified model with bovine enamel placed in denture teeth performed in a similar manner to the standard model with human teeth placed in the buccal flange, and thus is suitable for future in situ studies comparing dentifrice product treatments.
Division: IADR/AADR/CADR General Session
Meeting:2019 IADR/AADR/CADR General Session (Vancouver, BC, Canada) Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Year: 2019 Final Presentation ID:3436 Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s):Cariology Research-Demineralization/Remineralization
Authors
Zero, Domenick
( Indiana University School of Dentistry
, Indianapolis
, Indiana
, United States
)
Lippert, Frank
( Indiana University School of Dentistry
, Indianapolis
, Indiana
, United States
)
Hara, Anderson
( Indiana University School of Dentistry
, Indianapolis
, Indiana
, United States
)
Eckert, George
( Indiana University School of Medicine
, Indianapolis
, Indiana
, United States
)
Support Funding Agency/Grant Number: Supported by an Investigator-Sponsored Studies Grant from GSK Consumer Healthcare
Financial Interest Disclosure: NONE
SESSION INFORMATION
Oral Session
Demineralization/Remineralization II
Saturday,
06/22/2019
, 02:00PM - 03:30PM
TABLES
Ratio to 1100 ppm F for all Outcome Measures for Modified Model (MM) and Standard Model (SM)
Outcome
Ratio to 1100 ppm F (mean of 'x' ppm F / mean of 1100 ppm F)
MM
SM
0 ppm F
250 ppm F
500 ppm F
0 ppm F
250 ppm F
500 ppm F
%SMHR
0.29*a
0.63*b
0.85c
0.28*a
0.61*b
0.81 b
SMH NAR
-0.77*a
0.36*b
0.60*b
-1.19*a
0.08*b
0.48 b
SMH CAR
2.36*a
1.23b
1.44b
2.83*a
1.57 b
1.46 b
EFU
0.32*a
0.76*b
0.91*c
0.35*a
0.78*b
0.92*c
TMR Delta Z
1.83*a
1.33b
0.98 b
1.78*a
1.06 b
1.05 b
TMR L
1.92*a
1.54b
1.29 b
1.69*a
1.17 b
1.04 b
Treatments with the same letter were not statistically significantly different from each other (ANOVA model; p>0.05). * indicates significant difference from 1100 ppm F positive control.