Comparative remineralization effects of human and artificial saliva compositions on incipient dental caries.
10.11149/jkaoh.2017.41.1.50
- Author:
Seong Soog JEONG
1
;
Ki Ho CHUNG
Author Information
1. Department of Preventive & Public Health Dentistry, Chonnam National University School of Dentistry, Gwangju, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Artificial saliva;
Dental caries;
Remineralization
- MeSH:
Dental Caries*;
Dental Enamel;
Hardness;
Humans*;
Hydrogen-Ion Concentration;
Saliva;
Saliva, Artificial*;
Tooth;
Water
- From:Journal of Korean Academy of Oral Health
2017;41(1):50-55
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare enamel remineralization effects of human whole saliva and currently available artificial saliva compositions, using teeth exposed to chemical pH cycling conditions, and to obtain data that can inform future design and manufacturing of additional artificial saliva compositions. METHODS: Seventy-two specimens of bovine tooth enamel were embedded in resin, then polished and exposed to a lactate/carbopol buffer system for 48-52 hours. Specimens were allocated into six experimental groups (n=12 specimens per group) by randomized blocks, such that each group contained an equivalent proportion of specimens at each Vickers hardness number (VHN) stratum: deionized water as a negative control, human whole saliva and artificial saliva compositions A, B, C and D. Surface hardness was measured before and after 15 days of chemical pH cycling. Surface microhardness was measured (Fm-7, Future-tech Corp, Japan) before and after treatment with test saliva compositions. One-way ANOVA, with post hoc Tukey test, was used to evaluate statistical differences with a significance threshold of P<0.05. RESULTS: The intragroup changes in microhardness (ΔVHN) for treatment with each saliva composition were (in ascending order of ΔVHN): ―0.39±16.08 (deionized water control), 7.32±11.52 (artificial saliva B), 39.18±11.94 (artificial saliva C), 3.83±13.81 (artificial saliva D), 62.44±29.23 (artificial saliva A) and 102.90±25.89 (human whole saliva). Enamel treated with human saliva, or with artificial saliva compositions A, C, or D, demonstrated comparatively greater microhardness than enamel treated with deionized water or artificial saliva B. There was no difference in surface hardness between enamel treated with artificial saliva B and enamel treated with deionized water. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that human saliva and artificial saliva compositions A, C, and D are effective remineralization solutions for use in pH cycling.
