J. Orthod.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gillgrass, T. J.
Right arrow Articles by Millett, D. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gillgrass, T. J.
Right arrow Articles by Millett, D. T.
Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 28, No. 4, 291-295, December 2001
© 2001 British Orthodontic Society

Scientific Section

Varnish or Polymeric Coating for the Prevention of Demineralization? An Ex Vivo Study

T. J. Gillgrass1, S. L. Creanor1, R. H. Foye1 and D. T. Millett2

1 Hard Tissue Research Group, University of Glasgow Dental School, Glasgow, UK
2 Unit of Orthodontics, University of Glasgow Dental School, Glasgow, UK

Dr S. L. Creanor, Hard Tissue Research Laboratory, University of Glasgow Dental School, 378 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow G2 3JZ, UK (s.creanor{at}dental.gla.ac.uk).

Abstract

Objective: The ability of an experimental coating, Odyssey, to prevent demineralisation ex vivo was compared with that of a fluoride varnish, Duraphat® and a chlorhexidine-containing varnish, Cervitec.

Design: an ex vivo single-blind study.

Setting: Hard tissue research laboratory.

Materials and methods: thirty bovine enamel blocks 0•5 cm x 1•5 cm were divided into 6 groups of 5 specimens. The enamel blocks were then allocated to one of 6 surface treatments.

Interventions: (1) surface left unprepared (control), (2) Duraphat® application, (3) Cervitec application, (4) experimental polymer coating, (5) enamel conditioned with 10% citric acid and coated with the experimental polymer coating Odyssey (O + C), (6) enamel etched for 30 sec with 37% phosphoric acid and coated with the experimental coating (O + E). All specimens were cycled for 7 days through a daily procedure of demineralisation for 4 hours and remineralisation for 20 hours, and exposed to an equivalent of 2 months toothbrushing. A single operator blinded to the treatment allocation of each specimen carried artificial lesion depth assessment out using computer-assisted transverse microradiography.

Results: The control group had the greatest mean lesion depth (97•16 + 29•8 µm) with the Duraphat® group exhibiting the lowest mean lesion depth (24•53 + 15•44 µm). The Duraphat®, Odyssey, O + C and O + E groups all had significantly less lesion depth when compared with no surface preparation (p < 0•05 for all comparisons). There were no significant differences between any of the Odyssey groups.

Conclusions: The efficacy of Duraphat® application in preventing demineralisation ex vivo has been demonstrated in the present study, but clinical trials are required to assess its usefulness in orthodontic practice.

Key words: Demineralisation, Ex vivo, Polymeric Coating, Varnish




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
S. Li, R. S. Hobson, Y. Bai, Z. Yan, T. E. Carrick, and J. F. McCabe
A method for producing controlled fluoride release from an orthodontic bracket
Eur J Orthod, December 1, 2007; 29(6): 550 - 554.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 British Orthodontic Society.