ABSTRACT Objective This in situ/ex vivo study investigated the effect of CO2 laser irradiation and acidulated phosphate fluoride gel (APF) application, separately and in combination, on enamel resistance to erosion. Material and Methods During 2 experimental 5-day crossover phases, 8 volunteers wore intraoral appliances containing bovine enamel blocks which were submitted to four groups: 1st phase - control, untreated and CO2 laser irradiation, 2nd phase - fluoride application and fluoride application before CO2 laser irradiation. Laser irradiation was performed at 10.6 µm wavelength, 5 µs pulse duration and 50 Hz frequency, with average power input and output of 2.3 W and 2.0 W, respectively (28.6 J/cm2). APF gel (1.23%F, pH 3.5) was applied on enamel surface with a microbrush and left on for 4 minutes. Then, the enamel blocks were fixed at the intraoral appliance level. The erosion was performed extraorally 4 times daily for 5 min in 150 mL of cola drink. Enamel loss was measured profilometrically after treatment and after the in situ phase. The data were tested using one-way Repeated Measures Anova and Tukey's test (p<0.05). Results CO2 laser alone (2.00±0.39 µm) did not show any significantly preventive effect against enamel erosion when compared with the control group (2.41±1.20 µm). Fluoride treated enamel, associated (1.50±0.30 µm) or not (1.47±0.63 µm) with laser irradiation, significantly differed from the control. Conclusion The APF application decreased enamel wear; however, CO2 laser irradiation did not enhance fluoride ability to reduce enamel wear.

ABSTRACT Objective This in situ/ex vivo study investigated the effect of CO2 laser irradiation and acidulated phosphate fluoride gel (APF) application, separately and in combination, on enamel resistance to erosion. Material and Methods During 2 experimental 5-day crossover phases, 8 volunteers wore intraoral appliances containing bovine enamel blocks which were submitted to four groups: 1st phase - control, untreated and CO2 laser irradiation, 2nd phase - fluoride application and fluoride application before CO2 laser irradiation. Laser irradiation was performed at 10.6 µm wavelength, 5 µs pulse duration and 50 Hz frequency, with average power input and output of 2.3 W and 2.0 W, respectively (28.6 J/cm2). APF gel (1.23%F, pH 3.5) was applied on enamel surface with a microbrush and left on for 4 minutes. Then, the enamel blocks were fixed at the intraoral appliance level. The erosion was performed extraorally 4 times daily for 5 min in 150 mL of cola drink. Enamel loss was measured profilometrically after treatment and after the in situ phase. The data were tested using one-way Repeated Measures Anova and Tukey's test (p<0.05). Results CO2 laser alone (2.00±0.39 µm) did not show any significantly preventive effect against enamel erosion when compared with the control group (2.41±1.20 µm). Fluoride treated enamel, associated (1.50±0.30 µm) or not (1.47±0.63 µm) with laser irradiation, significantly differed from the control. Conclusion The APF application decreased enamel wear; however, CO2 laser irradiation did not enhance fluoride ability to reduce enamel wear.

Abstract Objective The prevalence of dental erosion has been recently increasing, requiring new preventive and therapeutic approaches. Vegetable oils have been studied in preventive dentistry because they come from a natural, edible, low-cost, and worldwide accessible source. This study aimed to evaluate the protective effect of different vegetable oils, applied in two concentrations, on initial enamel erosion. Material and Methods Initially, the acquired pellicle was formed in situ for 2 hours. Subsequently, the enamel blocks were treated in vitro according to the study group (n=12/per group): GP5 and GP100 – 5% and pure palm oil, respectively; GC5 and GC100 – 5% and pure coconut oil; GSa5 and GSa100 – 5% and pure safflower oil; GSu5 and GSu100 – 5% and pure sunflower oil; GO5 and GO100 – 5% and pure olive oil; CON− – Deionized Water (negative control) and CON+ – Commercial Mouthwash (Elmex® Erosion Protection Dental Rinse, GABA/positive control). Then, the enamel blocks were immersed in artificial saliva for 2 minutes and subjected to short-term acid exposure in 0.5% citric acid, pH 2.4, for 30 seconds, to promote enamel surface softening. The response variable was the percentage of surface hardness loss [((SHi - SHf) / SHf )×100]. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p<0.05). Results Enamel blocks of GP100 presented similar hardness loss to GSu100 (p>0.05) and less than the other groups (p<0.05). There was no difference between GP5, GC5, GC100, GSa5, GSu100, GSa100, GSu5, GO5, GO100, CON− and CON+. Conclusion Palm oil seems to be a promising alternative for preventing enamel erosion. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate a long-term erosive cycling.

Abstract Objective The prevalence of dental erosion has been recently increasing, requiring new preventive and therapeutic approaches. Vegetable oils have been studied in preventive dentistry because they come from a natural, edible, low-cost, and worldwide accessible source. This study aimed to evaluate the protective effect of different vegetable oils, applied in two concentrations, on initial enamel erosion. Material and Methods Initially, the acquired pellicle was formed in situ for 2 hours. Subsequently, the enamel blocks were treated in vitro according to the study group (n=12/per group): GP5 and GP100 – 5% and pure palm oil, respectively; GC5 and GC100 – 5% and pure coconut oil; GSa5 and GSa100 – 5% and pure safflower oil; GSu5 and GSu100 – 5% and pure sunflower oil; GO5 and GO100 – 5% and pure olive oil; CON− – Deionized Water (negative control) and CON+ – Commercial Mouthwash (Elmex® Erosion Protection Dental Rinse, GABA/positive control). Then, the enamel blocks were immersed in artificial saliva for 2 minutes and subjected to short-term acid exposure in 0.5% citric acid, pH 2.4, for 30 seconds, to promote enamel surface softening. The response variable was the percentage of surface hardness loss [((SHi - SHf) / SHf )×100]. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p<0.05). Results Enamel blocks of GP100 presented similar hardness loss to GSu100 (p>0.05) and less than the other groups (p<0.05). There was no difference between GP5, GC5, GC100, GSa5, GSu100, GSa100, GSu5, GO5, GO100, CON− and CON+. Conclusion Palm oil seems to be a promising alternative for preventing enamel erosion. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate a long-term erosive cycling.