■脱矿和再矿化的循环导致龋齿发展的动态过程。在唾液氟化物水平(百万分之几)的帮助下,牙齿-口腔流体界面的平衡从去矿质到再矿化的转变可以防止龋齿。氟化物清漆应用于其他替代品如洁牙剂的优点,漱口水,凝胶,或泡沫是婴儿对清漆的耐受性良好,年幼的孩子,或有特殊医疗保健需求并具有长期治疗效果的儿童。本研究旨在评估和比较不同氟化物清漆中氟化物释放的寿命,即Fluor保护者,Enamelast,和搪瓷专业清漆。
■评估和比较三种不同氟化物清漆中氟化物释放的寿命。
■研究样本包括72颗健康的恒牙上颌前牙。牙齿分为四组,每组有18颗牙齿。然后根据相应的组,用不同颜色的指甲油覆盖所有牙齿的表面,除了牙冠的面部(唇)表面上的3×3mm窗口,其中测试材料根据其各自的组应用。在第一组中,Fluor保护剂清漆;在第二组中,搪瓷层清漆;在第三组中,施加搪瓷Pro清漆。第四组是对照组;因此,没有应用测试材料。然后将所有样品在室温下在人工唾液中储存在pH为7.2的塑料容器中。1天后将样品转移到新的塑料容器中,含有新鲜的人工唾液,并从以前的塑料容器中取出溶液进行氟化物分析。依次重复该过程以分析在1、3和6个月结束时从样品中释放的氟化物的量(以ppm计)。
在社会科学统计软件包(SPSS)软件(Windows版本22.0)上进行分析。
■常规使用的1.5%氟化铵清漆,也就是说,Fluor保护剂清漆,显示氟化物的释放最少(0.03±0.0ppm),而基于树脂载体的5%氟化钠清漆,也就是说,Enamelast清漆连续6个月表现出良好的氟化物释放量,也就是说,(0.16±0.06ppm)在最后一次随访。搪瓷漆,含有5%氟化钠和无定形磷酸钙(ACP)配方,被发现是最好的清漆,因为它在长达3个月(0.32±0.08)的人工唾液中释放出最大的氟化物量,但仅在6个月的随访时间为0.09±0.03ppm时,才比Enamelast清漆少。
■本研究得出的结论是,根据持续6个月的氟化物释放量,搪瓷漆,其次是Enamelast清漆和FluorProtector清漆,建议申请龋齿预防。
■辛格V,NaikS,VashisthP,etal.三种不同氟化物清漆中氟化物释放寿命的比较评估:观察性研究。IntJClinPediatrDent2024;17(3):341-345。
UNASSIGNED: The cycles of demineralization and remineralization result in a dynamic process of caries development. Caries are prevented by the shift in the balance from demineralization to remineralization at the tooth-oral fluid interface with the help of salivary fluoride levels (in parts per million). The advantages of fluoride varnish application over other substitutes like dentifrices, mouthrinses, gels, or foams are that varnishes are well tolerated by infants, young children, or children with special healthcare needs and have prolonged therapeutic effects. This study was formulated to evaluate and compare the longevity of fluoride release from different fluoride varnishes, namely Fluor Protector, Enamelast, and Enamel Pro varnish.
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate and compare the longevity of fluoride release from three different fluoride varnishes.
UNASSIGNED: The study samples comprised 72 healthy permanent maxillary anterior teeth. The teeth were divided into four groups, with eighteen teeth in each group. The surfaces of all teeth were then covered by different colored nail varnish according to the respective group, except for a 3 × 3 mm window on the facial (labial) surface of the crown, where the test materials were applied according to their respective group. In group I, Fluor Protector varnish; in group II, Enamelast varnish; and in group III, Enamel Pro varnish was applied. Group IV was the control group; hence, no test material was applied. All specimens were then stored in plastic containers with a pH of 7.2 in artificial saliva at room temperature. The specimens were transferred into new plastic containers after 1 day, containing fresh artificial saliva, and solutions from previous plastic containers were taken for fluoride analysis. This process was repeated sequentially to analyze the amount of fluoride released in ppm from the specimens at the end of 1, 3, and 6 months.
UNASSIGNED: Analysis was performed on Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (Windows version 22.0).
UNASSIGNED: Conventionally used 1.5% ammonium fluoride varnish, that is, Fluor Protector varnish, showed the least release of fluoride (0.03 ± 0.0 ppm), while resin carrier-based 5% sodium fluoride varnish, that is, Enamelast varnish showed a good amount of fluoride release for 6 months continuously, that is, (0.16 ± 0.06 ppm) at last follow-up. Enamel Pro varnish, which has 5% sodium fluoride with amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP) formula, was found to be the best varnish as it released the maximum amount of fluoride in ppm in artificial saliva for up to 3 months (0.32 ± 0.08) but less than Enamelast varnish only at 6 months follow-up that is 0.09 ± 0.03 ppm.
UNASSIGNED: The present study concludes that based on the amount of fluoride released for 6 months duration, Enamel Pro varnish, followed by Enamelast varnish and Fluor Protector varnish, are advisable to apply for caries prevention.
UNASSIGNED: Singh V, Naik S, Vashisth P, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Longevity of Fluoride Release from Three Different Fluoride Varnishes: An Observational Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(3):341-345.