This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Buchalla, W. Articles by Hellwig, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Fluoride Uptake, Retention, and Remineralization Efficacy of a Highly Concentrated Fluoride Solution on Enamel Lesions in situ

¹ Oral Health Research Institute, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USA;
² Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Freiburg, Germany;
³ Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Göttingen, Germany; and
⁴ Institute for Medical Biometry, University of Freiburg, Germany;

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Study design. One volunteer's specimen regimen for study period I is shown. Study period II follows the same regimen except that volunteers who received elmex fluid in period I get a placebo and vice versa. Specimens worn by an individual volunteer originated from 5 teeth. Specimens for fluoride and microradiographic analysis removed at the same time in both periods originated from the same tooth (n = 4). Specimens for microradiography had 2 demineralized windows, with one covered with resin to serve as a demineralized control. Specimens for fluoride analysis had the entire surface demineralized.

View larger version (44K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Means and standard deviations (represented by error bars) from fluoride analyses (A,B) and microradiography (C,D) of the previously demineralized enamel specimens after an in situ period of 5 min, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days following application of elmex fluid or placebo. Asterisks indicate significant (p 0.05) differences between elmex fluid and placebo for the given time. (A) KOH-soluble fluoride [µg/cm2] decreased significantly (p 0.001) with time for elmex fluid. The SD for elmex fluid after 5 min had to be truncated and is therefore written in brackets. (B) Structurally bound fluoride [µg/cm3] increased significantly (p 0.001) up to 3 wks following elmex fluid application, but only minimally in the placebo group. (C) Mineral gain [vol% x µm] increased significantly (p 0.01) with time following elmex fluid application. (D) Lesion depth reduction [µm] increased significantly with time (p 0.05) in both groups.

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Scatter plot and trend line of the stimulated saliva flow rate (mL/min) vs. (A) KOH-soluble fluoride (µg/cm2) and (B) structurally bound fluoride (µg/cm3) of the fluoridated enamel specimens of all volunteers shown for 14 days in situ (n = 18). Both KOH-soluble (A) and structurally bound fluoride (B) accumulate logarithmically less in volunteers with higher salivary flow rates. A linear relationship can be seen between stimulated salivary flow rate and mineral gain (vol% x µm) shown after 28 days in situ (n = 18) for the elmex fluid group (C) and the placebo group (D).

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati