IADR Abstract Archives
Protease and Peptide Guided Mineralization Improves Hardening of Hypomineralized Enamel
Objectives: In the early stages of caries or mild hypomineralization, enamel can be remineralized if its three-dimensional structure is not compromised, to avoid restorative treatments. Deproteinization of hypomineralized enamel prior to restoration has been shown to improve bonding strength of enamel, but the effect of deproteinization combined with mineralization and hardening of hypomineralized enamel has not been investigated.
Objectives: To test the efficacy of enamel hardening by protein removal followed by mineralization protocols in current clinical use, and in combination with a proprietary peptide.
Methods: Extracted human molars were sectioned into enamel chips, and subsurface lesions were created (n=30). Fifteen samples were subjected to papain gel (Papacarie) for 10 minutes to remove proteins while the control group (n=15) was not treated. Each group was then divided into 5 treatment subgroups (n=3 per subgroup): (1) Buffer, (2) Peptide, (3) CPP-ACP (MI-Paste), (4) Sodium Fluoride, (5) Peptide + Sodium Fluoride. Samples underwent pH cycling for 10 days, with 5-hour demineralization at pH 4.6 and 19-hour remineralization at pH 7.0. Changes in hardness and composition of the subsurface lesions were assessed using microhardness measurements and Raman spectroscopy on sections.
Results: Mean microhardness (HV) of untreated lesions was 151.7 (SD = 49.0). We did not see a significant increase in the microhardness of the control group (1) regardless of the pretreatment applied (p > 0.05). HV increased most in deproteinized samples, including the Peptide + Sodium Fluoride group (5) with a mean value of 456.2 (SD = 38.6). Similarly, differences between groups were observed by Raman, with peak intensity at 960cm-1, representing the PO4 group in hydroxyapatite (p>0.05).
Conclusions: Using our protocol combining deproteinization and peptide directed mineralization, at the surface level enamel was effectively hardened with HV values similar to sound enamel.
Objectives: To test the efficacy of enamel hardening by protein removal followed by mineralization protocols in current clinical use, and in combination with a proprietary peptide.
Methods: Extracted human molars were sectioned into enamel chips, and subsurface lesions were created (n=30). Fifteen samples were subjected to papain gel (Papacarie) for 10 minutes to remove proteins while the control group (n=15) was not treated. Each group was then divided into 5 treatment subgroups (n=3 per subgroup): (1) Buffer, (2) Peptide, (3) CPP-ACP (MI-Paste), (4) Sodium Fluoride, (5) Peptide + Sodium Fluoride. Samples underwent pH cycling for 10 days, with 5-hour demineralization at pH 4.6 and 19-hour remineralization at pH 7.0. Changes in hardness and composition of the subsurface lesions were assessed using microhardness measurements and Raman spectroscopy on sections.
Results: Mean microhardness (HV) of untreated lesions was 151.7 (SD = 49.0). We did not see a significant increase in the microhardness of the control group (1) regardless of the pretreatment applied (p > 0.05). HV increased most in deproteinized samples, including the Peptide + Sodium Fluoride group (5) with a mean value of 456.2 (SD = 38.6). Similarly, differences between groups were observed by Raman, with peak intensity at 960cm-1, representing the PO4 group in hydroxyapatite (p>0.05).
Conclusions: Using our protocol combining deproteinization and peptide directed mineralization, at the surface level enamel was effectively hardened with HV values similar to sound enamel.