JDR JDR Most Read Articles
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Corpron, R. E.
Right arrow Articles by Kowalski, C. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Corpron, R. E.
Right arrow Articles by Kowalski, C. J.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol 66, 1020-1024, Copyright © 1987 by International & American Associations for Dental Research Online Journals


ARTICLES

Intra-oral effects on acid-softened enamel of NaF lozenges administered in divided daily doses

R. E. Corpron, J. W. Clark, J. Arnold, F. G. More, D. Merrill and C. J. Kowalski

The purpose of this investigation was to study the intra-oral effects of multiple daily applications of NaF lozenges upon acid-softened enamel. Bovine enamel slabs were softened with 0.1 mol/L lactate buffer at pH 4.0 for 14 hrs and subsequently mounted in a mandibular removable Hawley appliance. Control slabs were worn for seven days by eight adult male subjects who brushed their natural dentition daily with a fluoride-free dentifrice. Test slabs were exposed to one 0.55-mg NaF lozenge (0.25 mg F) 4x/day for seven days and the natural dentition brushed with a fluoride-free dentifrice. The efficacy of 0.25-mg F lozenges used 4x/day over that of a 1-mg F lozenge administered 1x/day was established by a pilot study with two subjects. Microhardness testing was performed after intra-oral exposure (IOE) and following immersion in 0.01 mol/L lactate buffer containing Ca and PO4 for 24 hrs at a pH of 4.0. Fluoride uptake was measured on separate control and test slabs after KOH wash and after acid-resistance-testing (ART). Recovery of microhardness following IOE was 40.9% for controls and 53.9% for treated slabs, while control slabs retained 1.3% resistance to ART, compared with 25.6% for test slabs. The F content of the control slabs was significantly less than that of lozenge-treated and lozenge-treated-ART slabs throughout the depth of the lesion. The F content of the lozenge-treated-ART slabs was significantly less than that of the lozenge-treated slabs only at the 0-5-microns depth.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
IADR Journals Advances in Dental Research ®
Journal of Dental Research ® Critical Reviews (1990-2004)
Copyright © 1987 Institutional Access Guidelines