Loading...
Publication
Qual o melhor "timing" da escovagem dos dentes, após ataque erosivo ao esmalte? : estudo in vitro
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17.4 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Objetivos: Avaliar o “timing” da escovagem dos dentes com uma pasta dentífrica, fluoretada ou com clorohexidina, após desafio erosivo com Redbull®. Materiais e métodos: 132 espécimes de esmalte de molares humanos foram divididos aleatoriamente em 11 grupos (cada grupo controle ou subgrupo com n=12). G1, esmalte são (controle); G2, erosão + água desionizada (controle); G3, erosão + Saliva artificial (controle); G4, erosão + 0 min em saliva artificial + escovagem com pasta dentífrica; G5, erosão + 30 min em saliva artificial + escovagem com pasta dentífrica; G6, erosão + 2 h em saliva artificial + escovagem com pasta dentífrica; e G7, erosão + 4 h em saliva artificial + escovagem com pasta dentífrica. As amostras dos grupos 4-7 foram divididas em 2 subgrupos de acordo com a pasta dentífrica usada. Por grupo, 10 espécimes foram submetidos a testes de microdureza de Vickers e 2 foram observados ao Microscópio Eletrónico de Varrimento. Os dados recolhidos foram analisados estatisticamente por aplicação de um teste ANOVA a um fator (intervalo de confiança de 95%), seguido de comparação múltipla pelo teste de contrastes (software SPSS, versão 24). Resultados: O teste ANOVA a um fator, F(10,99)=7,434 revelou existirem diferenças significativas entre os grupos de estudo (p=0,001): ūG4.1 = ūG4.2 < ūG2 = ūG3 = ūG5.1 = ūG5.2 = ūG7.2 < ūG1 = ūG6.1 = ūG7.1 = ūG6.2. As imagens do Microscópio Eletrónico de Varrimento mostram que: O G4.1, G5.1, G6.1 e G7.1 assemelham-se mais ao G1. O G3 apresenta maior organização do que o G2. Conclusões: Os resultados sugerem que o melhor “timing” da escovagem dos dentes é de 2 h, após ataque erosivo ao esmalte; e que a melhor pasta dentífrica é a fluoretada, devido ao seu efeito remineralizante no esmalte.
Objectives: Evaluate the best time for teeth brushing with a fluorinated or chlorhexidine toothpaste, after erosive attack with Redbull®. Materials and methods: 132 specimens of enamel from human molars were randomly divided by 11 groups (each control group or subgroup with n=12). G1, healthy enamel (control); G2, erosion + deionized water (control); G3, erosion + artificial saliva (control); G4, erosion + 0 min in artificial saliva + brushing with toothpaste; G5, erosion + 30 min in artificial saliva + brushing with toothpaste; G6, erosion + 2 h in artificial saliva + brushing with toothpaste; and G7, erosion + 4 h in artificial saliva + brushing with toothpaste. The samples of the groups 4-7 were divided in two subgroups, according to the toothpaste used. Per group, 10 specimens were submitted to Vickers microhardness tests and 2 were observed by Scanning Electron Microscopy. The collected data was statistically analysed by One-factor ANOVA (confidence interval of 95 %), followed by multiple comparison by contrast tests (software SPSS, version 24). Results: One-factor ANOVA F(10,99)=7,434 revealed significant differences among the study groups (p=0,001): ūG4.1 = ūG4.2 < ūG2 = ūG3 = ūG5.1 = ūG5.2 = ūG7.2 < ūG1 = ūG6.1 = ūG7.1 = ūG6.2. The images from the Scanning Electron Microscopy showed that: G4.1, G5.1, G6.1 and G7.1, are more similar to G1. G3 exhibits more organisation than G2. Conclusions: The results suggest that the best “timing” for teeth brushing after erosive attack to the enamel is 2 h; and the best toothpaste is the fluorinated, due to its reminelarizing capacity on the enamel.
Objectives: Evaluate the best time for teeth brushing with a fluorinated or chlorhexidine toothpaste, after erosive attack with Redbull®. Materials and methods: 132 specimens of enamel from human molars were randomly divided by 11 groups (each control group or subgroup with n=12). G1, healthy enamel (control); G2, erosion + deionized water (control); G3, erosion + artificial saliva (control); G4, erosion + 0 min in artificial saliva + brushing with toothpaste; G5, erosion + 30 min in artificial saliva + brushing with toothpaste; G6, erosion + 2 h in artificial saliva + brushing with toothpaste; and G7, erosion + 4 h in artificial saliva + brushing with toothpaste. The samples of the groups 4-7 were divided in two subgroups, according to the toothpaste used. Per group, 10 specimens were submitted to Vickers microhardness tests and 2 were observed by Scanning Electron Microscopy. The collected data was statistically analysed by One-factor ANOVA (confidence interval of 95 %), followed by multiple comparison by contrast tests (software SPSS, version 24). Results: One-factor ANOVA F(10,99)=7,434 revealed significant differences among the study groups (p=0,001): ūG4.1 = ūG4.2 < ūG2 = ūG3 = ūG5.1 = ūG5.2 = ūG7.2 < ūG1 = ūG6.1 = ūG7.1 = ūG6.2. The images from the Scanning Electron Microscopy showed that: G4.1, G5.1, G6.1 and G7.1, are more similar to G1. G3 exhibits more organisation than G2. Conclusions: The results suggest that the best “timing” for teeth brushing after erosive attack to the enamel is 2 h; and the best toothpaste is the fluorinated, due to its reminelarizing capacity on the enamel.
Description
Dissertação para obtenção do grau de Mestre no Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz
Keywords
Erosão dentária Escovagem Clorohexidina Flúor