IADR Abstract Archives
Distinct Technologies Performance in Control and Prevention of Dentin Erosion
Objectives: Erosive Tooth Wear (ETW) occurs slowly and progressively affecting dentin that leads to its exposure and sensitivity. Clinical approaches to prevent, control and treat ETW have been investigated through the use of different technologies based on materials capable to effectively interact with dentin. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of different agents with particular technologies and their ability to avoid or minimize the progression of ETW by surface microhardness (SM) and wettability (W) tests.
Methods: 120 sound molars (n=10) were randomly divided into 3 groups according to dentin substrate: S: Sound (control), EE: eroded by orange juice (simulating extrinsic erosion - immersion 3x-day/5min/5days) and EI: eroded by 0.6% hydrochloric acid (simulating intrinsic erosion - immersion 6x-day/20s/5days). After that, the specimens were subdivided according to the material: D: Duraphat (fluoride varnish - control), G: Gluma Desensitizer (HEMA and glutaraldehyde based) and B: PRG Protect Barrier Coat (S-PRG particles-based). The assessments of SM (KHN, 10g/10s/5x) and W were performed in three times: I: Initial - after first erosion challenge, AA: after application and F: after second erosive challenge. The data were subjected to a normality test and to repeated measures ANOVA tests (p < 0.05).
Results: For SM, the initial EE condition was the most affected condition, exhibiting the worst performance among all tested products. B showed the best performance on EE condition, while G was better under EI. For W, after the second erosive challenge, no significant differences were observed among dentin conditions and applied products.
Conclusions: It can be conclude that the etiology of ETW determined particular alterations of dentin in terms of SM and W, while the distinct technologies offered by the materials revealed that Gluma demonstrated homogeneous pattern in all tested conditions.
Methods: 120 sound molars (n=10) were randomly divided into 3 groups according to dentin substrate: S: Sound (control), EE: eroded by orange juice (simulating extrinsic erosion - immersion 3x-day/5min/5days) and EI: eroded by 0.6% hydrochloric acid (simulating intrinsic erosion - immersion 6x-day/20s/5days). After that, the specimens were subdivided according to the material: D: Duraphat (fluoride varnish - control), G: Gluma Desensitizer (HEMA and glutaraldehyde based) and B: PRG Protect Barrier Coat (S-PRG particles-based). The assessments of SM (KHN, 10g/10s/5x) and W were performed in three times: I: Initial - after first erosion challenge, AA: after application and F: after second erosive challenge. The data were subjected to a normality test and to repeated measures ANOVA tests (p < 0.05).
Results: For SM, the initial EE condition was the most affected condition, exhibiting the worst performance among all tested products. B showed the best performance on EE condition, while G was better under EI. For W, after the second erosive challenge, no significant differences were observed among dentin conditions and applied products.
Conclusions: It can be conclude that the etiology of ETW determined particular alterations of dentin in terms of SM and W, while the distinct technologies offered by the materials revealed that Gluma demonstrated homogeneous pattern in all tested conditions.