Anti-erosive potential of commercial bioactive glasses on dental hard tissues / Erum Saleem Khan

• Main Author: Erum Saleem , Khan
• Format: Thesis
• Published: 2015
• Subjects: RK Dentistry
• Online Access: http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/10413/4/erum.pdf; http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/10413/

Aims and Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the potential of two commercial bioactive glasses NUPRO® Sensodyne® Prophylaxis Paste and Sylc® Prophy Powder (Novamin®) in the secondary prevention of dental erosion. Methodology: This in-vitro study utilized 30 enamel and 30 dentine specimens that were prepared from human premolars and molars. The specimens were flattened and polished and randomly divided into six groups having ten specimens in each group, of which equal proportions of enamel and dentine specimens were further assigned to three groups: Control, Nupro, and Sylc. All specimens were subjected to 10 minutes of demineralisation in 0.3% citric acid at a pH of 3.2 ± 0.1. Baseline surface microhardness (SMH) and surface roughness (Ra) measurements were made using a Knoop indenter (HMV-2 Shimadzu Corporation, Japan) and the Infinite FocusG4 microscope (IFM, Alicona Imaging, Grambach/Graz, Austria). SMH was measured for only enamel specimens. Nupro and Sylc were applied on the enamel and dentine. Specimens were stored in remineralisation solution at 37°C and SMH measurements were made for enamel specimens and Ra was measured for all enamel and dentine specimens again 24 hours later. The specimens in all 6 groups were subjected to daily cycles of acid challenge for 10 minutes and stored in remineralisation solution at 37°C for six days. SMH (enamel) and Ra (enamel and dentine) measurements were made every day before acid challenge. Additional 24 specimens were prepared for SEM analysis at Baseline, Intervention and Day 6 of demineralisation. To determine the elemental gain or loss analysis was done by Energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDX) on specimens of Intervention and Day 6. The difference in SMH and Ra at the ii various time points from Baseline SMH & Ra, was the outcome measure used. The data were analysed using SPSS version 22 Results: All three groups of enamel showed a general trend of decrease in SMH over time. A significant difference in SMH was observed in all three groups. Furthermore, there were significant differences in SMH between the test groups and the controls (P < 0.05). However, significant differences in SMH were found only between Baseline and Intervention. No significant differences were observed between the other measurement time points and Baseline. In the Sylc group, significant differences in SMH were observed between Baseline and Intervention and up to Day 3 demineralisation. Regarding Ra, there was a significant difference in Ra over time. A significant difference in Ra existed between the test groups and the Control group as well as between Nupro and Sylc (P < 0.05). All six groups showed a net increase in Ra over the study period but with varying amounts and patterns. SEM-EDX showed remineralisation tendency of both Sylc® Prophy Powder and NUPRO® prophylaxis paste. Conclusion: Sylc® Prophy Powder and NUPRO® prophylaxis paste were able to reduce the rate of dental erosion. Sylc® Prophy Powder showed better reduction than Nupro.