Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The current study proposes a pH-cycling model to verify the dose-response relationship of fluoride-releasing materials in their ability to reduce in vitro demineralization. Sixty bovine enamel blocks (4 x 3 x 3 mm) were selected, using baseline surface microhardness (SMH1) evaluations at different distances from the enamel sectioned border (150, 300, 450 and 600 microm). Specimens (n=48) were prepared with Z100, Fluroshield and Vitremer at the standard powder/liquid ratio and at a 1/4 diluted-powder/liquid ratio. The 12 remaining specimens were used as a control group. The specimens were submitted to a pH-cycling model with high cariogenic challenge. After pH-cycling, final surface microhardness (SMH2) was assessed to calculate the percentage change of surface microhardness (%SMHc). Next, the fluoride present in enamel (microg F/mm3) and in pH-cycling solutions (microg F) was measured. Cross-sectional microhardness was done to calculate the mineral content (deltaZ). Data from %SMHc, deltaZ and microg F were analyzed by analysis of variance (p < 0.05), while microg F/mm3 analysis was done using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The results showed a correlation between %SMHc and microg F/mm3 (r3 = 0.4129; p < 0.0001), %SMHc and microg F (r2 = 0.4932; p < 0.0001), deltaZ and microg F/mm3 (r3 = 0.4573; p < 0.0001), micorg F/mm3 and microg F (r2 = 0.3029; p < 0.0001) and between deltaZ and microg F (r2 = 0.5276; p < 0.0001). The pH-cycling model allowed the in vitro verification of the dose-response relationship of fluoride-releasing materials in the demineralization of enamel.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodrigues et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: