Impact of Different Toothpastes on the Prevention of Erosion
The aim of the present study was to test the impact of different toothpastes on the prevention of erosion. Enamel demineralization and remineralization were monitored using surface microhardness (SMH) measurements. Human enamel specimens were treated following two different procedures: (1) incubatio...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Caries research 2008-01, Vol.42 (1), p.62-67 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 67 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 62 |
| container_title | Caries research |
| container_volume | 42 |
| creator | Lussi, A. Megert, B. Eggenberger, D. Jaeggi, T. |
| description | The aim of the present study was to test the impact of different toothpastes on the prevention of erosion. Enamel demineralization and remineralization were monitored using surface microhardness (SMH) measurements. Human enamel specimens were treated following two different procedures: (1) incubation in toothpaste slurry followed by acid softening and artificial saliva exposure; (2) acid softening followed by incubation in toothpaste slurry and artificial saliva exposure. For the control procedure, toothpaste treatment was excluded. The following toothpastes were tested: Zendium, Sensodyne Proschmelz (Pronamel), Prodent Rocket Power, Meridol and Signal active. Normalized SMH values compared to the baseline (= 1.00) after 1-hour artificial saliva exposure for procedure 1 (respectively for procedure 2) were as follows (mean: 95% CI): Sensodyne Proschmelz 0.97: 0.93, 1.00 (0.92: 0.90, 0.94), Zendium 0.97: 0.94, 1.00 (0.89: 0.83, 0.95), Meridol 0.97: 0.94, 1.00 (0.94: 0.92, 0.96), Signal active 0.94: 0.91, 0.97 (0.95: 0.91, 0.99), Prodent Rocket Power 0.92: 0.90, 0.94 (0.93: 0.89, 0.97) and control 0.91: 0.88, 0.94. Further exposure to artificial saliva for up to 4 h showed no significant improvement of SMH. Regression analyses revealed a significant impact of the applied procedure. Incubation in toothpaste slurries before the acid challenge seems to be favorable to prevent erosion. None of the tested toothpastes showed statistically significant better protection than another against an erosive attack. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1159/000112517 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_karge</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_karger_primary_112517</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>20911383</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-f96e7ae9bda02f789abec87b26923ab721679445c5bf72835c5c0ead2fe283ff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0M9LwzAUB_AgipvTg3eR4kHwUM1L2_wALzKnDgZ6mOCtpN2L61ybmbSC_72RDgUvnvJe8skX3iPkGOglQKauKKUALAOxQ4aQMoiV4C-7ZBjuZcwzLgfkwPtVUCnncp8MQFIpIIMhuZ7WG122kTXRbWUMOmzaaG5tu9xo36KPbBO1S4yeHH6Epyq0gU6c9aE8JHtGrz0ebc8Reb6bzMcP8ezxfjq-mcVlypM2Noqj0KiKhabMCKl0gaUUBeOKJboQDLhQaZqVWWEEk0koSop6wQyGzphkRM773I2z7x36Nq8rX-J6rRu0nc8FZSxhSv4LGVUAiUwCPPsDV7ZzTRgiZyykAdA0oIselWFc79DkG1fV2n3mQPPvxec_iw_2dBvYFTUufuV20wGc9OBNu1d0v6D__wUry4S9</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>220221104</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Impact of Different Toothpastes on the Prevention of Erosion</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Karger Journals Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Lussi, A. ; Megert, B. ; Eggenberger, D. ; Jaeggi, T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Lussi, A. ; Megert, B. ; Eggenberger, D. ; Jaeggi, T.</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of the present study was to test the impact of different toothpastes on the prevention of erosion. Enamel demineralization and remineralization were monitored using surface microhardness (SMH) measurements. Human enamel specimens were treated following two different procedures: (1) incubation in toothpaste slurry followed by acid softening and artificial saliva exposure; (2) acid softening followed by incubation in toothpaste slurry and artificial saliva exposure. For the control procedure, toothpaste treatment was excluded. The following toothpastes were tested: Zendium, Sensodyne Proschmelz (Pronamel), Prodent Rocket Power, Meridol and Signal active. Normalized SMH values compared to the baseline (= 1.00) after 1-hour artificial saliva exposure for procedure 1 (respectively for procedure 2) were as follows (mean: 95% CI): Sensodyne Proschmelz 0.97: 0.93, 1.00 (0.92: 0.90, 0.94), Zendium 0.97: 0.94, 1.00 (0.89: 0.83, 0.95), Meridol 0.97: 0.94, 1.00 (0.94: 0.92, 0.96), Signal active 0.94: 0.91, 0.97 (0.95: 0.91, 0.99), Prodent Rocket Power 0.92: 0.90, 0.94 (0.93: 0.89, 0.97) and control 0.91: 0.88, 0.94. Further exposure to artificial saliva for up to 4 h showed no significant improvement of SMH. Regression analyses revealed a significant impact of the applied procedure. Incubation in toothpaste slurries before the acid challenge seems to be favorable to prevent erosion. None of the tested toothpastes showed statistically significant better protection than another against an erosive attack.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-6568</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1421-976X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1159/000112517</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18087151</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CAREBK</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG</publisher><subject>Bicuspid ; Dental Enamel - pathology ; Dental Enamel Solubility ; Dentistry ; Hardness ; Humans ; Original Paper ; Regression Analysis ; Saliva, Artificial - chemistry ; Saliva, Artificial - therapeutic use ; Statistics, Nonparametric ; Tooth Erosion - prevention & control ; Toothpastes - chemistry ; Toothpastes - therapeutic use</subject><ispartof>Caries research, 2008-01, Vol.42 (1), p.62-67</ispartof><rights>2007 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-f96e7ae9bda02f789abec87b26923ab721679445c5bf72835c5c0ead2fe283ff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-f96e7ae9bda02f789abec87b26923ab721679445c5bf72835c5c0ead2fe283ff3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,2429,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18087151$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lussi, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Megert, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eggenberger, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jaeggi, T.</creatorcontrib><title>Impact of Different Toothpastes on the Prevention of Erosion</title><title>Caries research</title><addtitle>Caries Res</addtitle><description>The aim of the present study was to test the impact of different toothpastes on the prevention of erosion. Enamel demineralization and remineralization were monitored using surface microhardness (SMH) measurements. Human enamel specimens were treated following two different procedures: (1) incubation in toothpaste slurry followed by acid softening and artificial saliva exposure; (2) acid softening followed by incubation in toothpaste slurry and artificial saliva exposure. For the control procedure, toothpaste treatment was excluded. The following toothpastes were tested: Zendium, Sensodyne Proschmelz (Pronamel), Prodent Rocket Power, Meridol and Signal active. Normalized SMH values compared to the baseline (= 1.00) after 1-hour artificial saliva exposure for procedure 1 (respectively for procedure 2) were as follows (mean: 95% CI): Sensodyne Proschmelz 0.97: 0.93, 1.00 (0.92: 0.90, 0.94), Zendium 0.97: 0.94, 1.00 (0.89: 0.83, 0.95), Meridol 0.97: 0.94, 1.00 (0.94: 0.92, 0.96), Signal active 0.94: 0.91, 0.97 (0.95: 0.91, 0.99), Prodent Rocket Power 0.92: 0.90, 0.94 (0.93: 0.89, 0.97) and control 0.91: 0.88, 0.94. Further exposure to artificial saliva for up to 4 h showed no significant improvement of SMH. Regression analyses revealed a significant impact of the applied procedure. Incubation in toothpaste slurries before the acid challenge seems to be favorable to prevent erosion. None of the tested toothpastes showed statistically significant better protection than another against an erosive attack.</description><subject>Bicuspid</subject><subject>Dental Enamel - pathology</subject><subject>Dental Enamel Solubility</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Hardness</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Regression Analysis</subject><subject>Saliva, Artificial - chemistry</subject><subject>Saliva, Artificial - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><subject>Tooth Erosion - prevention & control</subject><subject>Toothpastes - chemistry</subject><subject>Toothpastes - therapeutic use</subject><issn>0008-6568</issn><issn>1421-976X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0M9LwzAUB_AgipvTg3eR4kHwUM1L2_wALzKnDgZ6mOCtpN2L61ybmbSC_72RDgUvnvJe8skX3iPkGOglQKauKKUALAOxQ4aQMoiV4C-7ZBjuZcwzLgfkwPtVUCnncp8MQFIpIIMhuZ7WG122kTXRbWUMOmzaaG5tu9xo36KPbBO1S4yeHH6Epyq0gU6c9aE8JHtGrz0ebc8Reb6bzMcP8ezxfjq-mcVlypM2Noqj0KiKhabMCKl0gaUUBeOKJboQDLhQaZqVWWEEk0koSop6wQyGzphkRM773I2z7x36Nq8rX-J6rRu0nc8FZSxhSv4LGVUAiUwCPPsDV7ZzTRgiZyykAdA0oIselWFc79DkG1fV2n3mQPPvxec_iw_2dBvYFTUufuV20wGc9OBNu1d0v6D__wUry4S9</recordid><startdate>20080101</startdate><enddate>20080101</enddate><creator>Lussi, A.</creator><creator>Megert, B.</creator><creator>Eggenberger, D.</creator><creator>Jaeggi, T.</creator><general>S. Karger AG</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080101</creationdate><title>Impact of Different Toothpastes on the Prevention of Erosion</title><author>Lussi, A. ; Megert, B. ; Eggenberger, D. ; Jaeggi, T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c463t-f96e7ae9bda02f789abec87b26923ab721679445c5bf72835c5c0ead2fe283ff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Bicuspid</topic><topic>Dental Enamel - pathology</topic><topic>Dental Enamel Solubility</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Hardness</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Regression Analysis</topic><topic>Saliva, Artificial - chemistry</topic><topic>Saliva, Artificial - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Statistics, Nonparametric</topic><topic>Tooth Erosion - prevention & control</topic><topic>Toothpastes - chemistry</topic><topic>Toothpastes - therapeutic use</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lussi, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Megert, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eggenberger, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jaeggi, T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Caries research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lussi, A.</au><au>Megert, B.</au><au>Eggenberger, D.</au><au>Jaeggi, T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Impact of Different Toothpastes on the Prevention of Erosion</atitle><jtitle>Caries research</jtitle><addtitle>Caries Res</addtitle><date>2008-01-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>62</spage><epage>67</epage><pages>62-67</pages><issn>0008-6568</issn><eissn>1421-976X</eissn><coden>CAREBK</coden><abstract>The aim of the present study was to test the impact of different toothpastes on the prevention of erosion. Enamel demineralization and remineralization were monitored using surface microhardness (SMH) measurements. Human enamel specimens were treated following two different procedures: (1) incubation in toothpaste slurry followed by acid softening and artificial saliva exposure; (2) acid softening followed by incubation in toothpaste slurry and artificial saliva exposure. For the control procedure, toothpaste treatment was excluded. The following toothpastes were tested: Zendium, Sensodyne Proschmelz (Pronamel), Prodent Rocket Power, Meridol and Signal active. Normalized SMH values compared to the baseline (= 1.00) after 1-hour artificial saliva exposure for procedure 1 (respectively for procedure 2) were as follows (mean: 95% CI): Sensodyne Proschmelz 0.97: 0.93, 1.00 (0.92: 0.90, 0.94), Zendium 0.97: 0.94, 1.00 (0.89: 0.83, 0.95), Meridol 0.97: 0.94, 1.00 (0.94: 0.92, 0.96), Signal active 0.94: 0.91, 0.97 (0.95: 0.91, 0.99), Prodent Rocket Power 0.92: 0.90, 0.94 (0.93: 0.89, 0.97) and control 0.91: 0.88, 0.94. Further exposure to artificial saliva for up to 4 h showed no significant improvement of SMH. Regression analyses revealed a significant impact of the applied procedure. Incubation in toothpaste slurries before the acid challenge seems to be favorable to prevent erosion. None of the tested toothpastes showed statistically significant better protection than another against an erosive attack.</abstract><cop>Basel, Switzerland</cop><pub>S. Karger AG</pub><pmid>18087151</pmid><doi>10.1159/000112517</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0008-6568 |
| ispartof | Caries research, 2008-01, Vol.42 (1), p.62-67 |
| issn | 0008-6568 1421-976X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_karger_primary_112517 |
| source | MEDLINE; Karger Journals Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Bicuspid Dental Enamel - pathology Dental Enamel Solubility Dentistry Hardness Humans Original Paper Regression Analysis Saliva, Artificial - chemistry Saliva, Artificial - therapeutic use Statistics, Nonparametric Tooth Erosion - prevention & control Toothpastes - chemistry Toothpastes - therapeutic use |
| title | Impact of Different Toothpastes on the Prevention of Erosion |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T13%3A04%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_karge&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Impact%20of%20Different%20Toothpastes%20on%20the%20Prevention%20of%20Erosion&rft.jtitle=Caries%20research&rft.au=Lussi,%20A.&rft.date=2008-01-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=62&rft.epage=67&rft.pages=62-67&rft.issn=0008-6568&rft.eissn=1421-976X&rft.coden=CAREBK&rft_id=info:doi/10.1159/000112517&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_karge%3E20911383%3C/proquest_karge%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=220221104&rft_id=info:pmid/18087151&rfr_iscdi=true |