{"title":"评估含有中和剂的护齿对氯水引起的珐琅质侵蚀的保护作用。","authors":"Kemporn Kitsahawong, Waranuch Pitiphat, Pawin Thongpaiboon, Sasitorn Thongpaiboon, Sutthiphon Saengsuwannarot","doi":"10.3389/froh.2024.1469228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Dental erosion is a common problem among swimmers. This study evaluated the effects of mouthguard use with or without neutralizing agents, compared to no mouthguard use, on the microhardness of dental enamel after a swimming simulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-six human premolars were randomly allocated into six groups of 16 each: Group A (no mouthguard), Group B (mouthguard only), Group C (mouthguard with fluoride toothpaste), Group D (mouthguard with fluoride-free toothpaste), Group E (mouthguard with CPP-ACP), and Group F (mouthguard with arginine-fluoride toothpaste). Enamel slabs were fixed in a wax model (Typodont Articulator) and used to fabricate mouthguards for all groups except Group A. Each specimen underwent cyclic immersion: 2 h in acidic chlorinated water (pH 3.1) followed by 22 h in artificial saliva, for 28 days, to simulate swimming exposure. The change in enamel surface hardness was measured using a Vickers hardness tester. All groups underwent microhardness testing, scanning electron microscopy, and polarized light microscopy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The enamel hardness significantly decreased in all groups after the swimming simulation (paired <i>t</i>-test, <i>P</i>-values < 0.001), except for Group F, which used a mouthguard with arginine-fluoride toothpaste [mean reduction: 17.9 kg/mm<sup>2</sup>, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.9, 37.7, <i>P</i>-value = 0.07]. Group A, without a mouthguard, exhibited the highest reduction in enamel surface hardness (mean: 190.6 kg/mm<sup>2</sup>; 95%CI: 177.4, 203.9), significantly differing from all other groups with mouthguards (<i>P</i>-values < 0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were observed in enamel hardness reduction among the mouthguard groups. SEM micrographs illustrated rough, irregular erosion patterns and several deep porous areas on enamel surfaces of Group A. In contrast, all mouthguard groups showed enamel surfaces similar to sound tooth surfaces. A polarized light microscopic study revealed the deepest dark areas on the enamel surface of Group A.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mouthguards significantly reduced enamel microhardness loss compared to no mouthguard use. While no significant differences were found among mouthguard groups with or without neutralizing agents, those lined with arginine-fluoride toothpaste showed the least enamel loss, suggesting its potential protective effect. Within the limitations of this <i>in vitro</i> study, further clinical trials are needed to validate these results.</p>","PeriodicalId":94016,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in oral health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11425598/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the protective effects of mouthguards with neutralizing agents against chlorinated water-induced enamel erosion.\",\"authors\":\"Kemporn Kitsahawong, Waranuch Pitiphat, Pawin Thongpaiboon, Sasitorn Thongpaiboon, Sutthiphon Saengsuwannarot\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/froh.2024.1469228\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Dental erosion is a common problem among swimmers. This study evaluated the effects of mouthguard use with or without neutralizing agents, compared to no mouthguard use, on the microhardness of dental enamel after a swimming simulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-six human premolars were randomly allocated into six groups of 16 each: Group A (no mouthguard), Group B (mouthguard only), Group C (mouthguard with fluoride toothpaste), Group D (mouthguard with fluoride-free toothpaste), Group E (mouthguard with CPP-ACP), and Group F (mouthguard with arginine-fluoride toothpaste). Enamel slabs were fixed in a wax model (Typodont Articulator) and used to fabricate mouthguards for all groups except Group A. Each specimen underwent cyclic immersion: 2 h in acidic chlorinated water (pH 3.1) followed by 22 h in artificial saliva, for 28 days, to simulate swimming exposure. The change in enamel surface hardness was measured using a Vickers hardness tester. All groups underwent microhardness testing, scanning electron microscopy, and polarized light microscopy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The enamel hardness significantly decreased in all groups after the swimming simulation (paired <i>t</i>-test, <i>P</i>-values < 0.001), except for Group F, which used a mouthguard with arginine-fluoride toothpaste [mean reduction: 17.9 kg/mm<sup>2</sup>, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.9, 37.7, <i>P</i>-value = 0.07]. Group A, without a mouthguard, exhibited the highest reduction in enamel surface hardness (mean: 190.6 kg/mm<sup>2</sup>; 95%CI: 177.4, 203.9), significantly differing from all other groups with mouthguards (<i>P</i>-values < 0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were observed in enamel hardness reduction among the mouthguard groups. SEM micrographs illustrated rough, irregular erosion patterns and several deep porous areas on enamel surfaces of Group A. In contrast, all mouthguard groups showed enamel surfaces similar to sound tooth surfaces. A polarized light microscopic study revealed the deepest dark areas on the enamel surface of Group A.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mouthguards significantly reduced enamel microhardness loss compared to no mouthguard use. While no significant differences were found among mouthguard groups with or without neutralizing agents, those lined with arginine-fluoride toothpaste showed the least enamel loss, suggesting its potential protective effect. Within the limitations of this <i>in vitro</i> study, further clinical trials are needed to validate these results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94016,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in oral health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11425598/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in oral health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2024.1469228\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in oral health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2024.1469228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
简介牙齿腐蚀是游泳者的常见问题。本研究评估了与不使用护齿相比,使用或不使用中和剂的护齿对模拟游泳后牙釉质微硬度的影响:将 96 颗人类前臼齿随机分为六组,每组 16 颗:A组(不使用护齿器)、B组(仅使用护齿器)、C组(使用含氟牙膏的护齿器)、D组(使用无氟牙膏的护齿器)、E组(使用 CPP-ACP 的护齿器)和 F 组(使用精氨酸-含氟牙膏的护齿器)。除 A 组外,其他各组的牙釉质板块均固定在蜡模(Typodont Articulator)中,并用于制作护齿。每个试样均经过循环浸泡:在酸性氯化水中浸泡 2 小时(pH 值为 3.1),然后在人工唾液中浸泡 22 小时,持续 28 天,以模拟游泳暴露。使用维氏硬度计测量珐琅质表面硬度的变化。所有组别都进行了显微硬度测试、扫描电子显微镜和偏光显微镜检查:模拟游泳后,所有组的牙釉质硬度都明显下降(配对 t 检验,P 值 2,95% 置信区间 (CI):-1.9,37.7,P 值 = 0.07]。没有佩戴护齿的 A 组的珐琅质表面硬度下降幅度最大(平均值:190.6 kg/mm2;95% 置信区间:177.4,203.9),与佩戴护齿的其他各组有显著差异(P 值 结论:A 组的珐琅质表面硬度下降幅度最大(平均值:190.6 kg/mm2;95% 置信区间:177.4,203.9),与佩戴护齿的其他各组有显著差异:与不使用护齿相比,护齿能明显减少釉质微硬度的损失。虽然使用或不使用中和剂的护齿组之间没有发现明显差异,但使用含精氨酸氟化物牙膏的护齿组的釉质损失最小,这表明其具有潜在的保护作用。由于这项体外研究的局限性,还需要进一步的临床试验来验证这些结果。
Evaluating the protective effects of mouthguards with neutralizing agents against chlorinated water-induced enamel erosion.
Introduction: Dental erosion is a common problem among swimmers. This study evaluated the effects of mouthguard use with or without neutralizing agents, compared to no mouthguard use, on the microhardness of dental enamel after a swimming simulation.
Methods: Ninety-six human premolars were randomly allocated into six groups of 16 each: Group A (no mouthguard), Group B (mouthguard only), Group C (mouthguard with fluoride toothpaste), Group D (mouthguard with fluoride-free toothpaste), Group E (mouthguard with CPP-ACP), and Group F (mouthguard with arginine-fluoride toothpaste). Enamel slabs were fixed in a wax model (Typodont Articulator) and used to fabricate mouthguards for all groups except Group A. Each specimen underwent cyclic immersion: 2 h in acidic chlorinated water (pH 3.1) followed by 22 h in artificial saliva, for 28 days, to simulate swimming exposure. The change in enamel surface hardness was measured using a Vickers hardness tester. All groups underwent microhardness testing, scanning electron microscopy, and polarized light microscopy.
Results: The enamel hardness significantly decreased in all groups after the swimming simulation (paired t-test, P-values < 0.001), except for Group F, which used a mouthguard with arginine-fluoride toothpaste [mean reduction: 17.9 kg/mm2, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.9, 37.7, P-value = 0.07]. Group A, without a mouthguard, exhibited the highest reduction in enamel surface hardness (mean: 190.6 kg/mm2; 95%CI: 177.4, 203.9), significantly differing from all other groups with mouthguards (P-values < 0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were observed in enamel hardness reduction among the mouthguard groups. SEM micrographs illustrated rough, irregular erosion patterns and several deep porous areas on enamel surfaces of Group A. In contrast, all mouthguard groups showed enamel surfaces similar to sound tooth surfaces. A polarized light microscopic study revealed the deepest dark areas on the enamel surface of Group A.
Conclusions: Mouthguards significantly reduced enamel microhardness loss compared to no mouthguard use. While no significant differences were found among mouthguard groups with or without neutralizing agents, those lined with arginine-fluoride toothpaste showed the least enamel loss, suggesting its potential protective effect. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, further clinical trials are needed to validate these results.