Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A comparison between in vitro and randomized in situ models for remineralization of artificial enamel lesions
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A comparison between in vitro and randomized in situ models for remineralization of artificial enamel lesions
Do you wish to request the book?
A comparison between in vitro and randomized in situ models for remineralization of artificial enamel lesions
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A comparison between in vitro and randomized in situ models for remineralization of artificial enamel lesions
2024
Overview
The randomized study aimed to evaluate the comparability of in situ (iS) and in vitro (iV) study protocols regarding remineralization of artificial enamel lesions. Two toothpastes (group A: 1450 ppm sodium fluoride, group B: placebo 0 ppm F-), were investigated. IV, a pH-cycling model with toothpaste slurry treatment was applied for 10d. IS, remineralization was performed in 9 participants wearing splints with embedded enamel samples for 10 and 21d, randomly allocated to groups A and B. Samples were scanned by X-ray micro-computed tomography (μCT) and grayscale value line profiles corresponding to mineral density (rel.ΔZ) were analyzed. Statistical analyses were performed using MedCalc Statistical Software, v22.021. T-Test for dependent and independent data and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for further analyses (α = 0.05). Rel.ΔZ of fluoride treated samples (A) were iV = 40.2%, iS 10d = 11.5% and iS 21d = 46.1% (p > 0.05). Rel.ΔZ of placebo treated samples (B) were: iV = − 6.2%, iS 10d = 25.2% and iS 21d = 11.0% (p > 0.05). Remineralization potential of both toothpastes was significantly different regarding iV (p < 0.001) and iS after 21d (p = 0.034), while in case of iS 10d no significant difference was detected (p = 0.4). Despite different study protocols the μCT results after remineralization were comparable between iV and iS. The results suggest that selected studies can be carried out in faster, simplified iV studies using pH-cycling instead of iS studies.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group,Nature Portfolio
Subject
