Influence of PRG barrier coat versus sodium fluoride varnish on enamel subjected to erosive-abrasive challenge | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Volume 70, Issue 4 - Serial Number 5, October 2024, Page 3887-3897 PDF (356.1 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2024.303371.3112 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Zeinab Omar Tolba   1; Heba Salah Hamza 2; Elhassan Hassanein 3; Nermeen Kamal Hamza 4
| ||||
| 1Lecturer, Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt | ||||
| 2Professor of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Egypt. | ||||
| 3Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf, Germany | ||||
| 4Associate professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, MSA University, 6th of October City, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Objective: To evaluate effect of PRG barrier coat versus NaF varnish and their combined application on microhardness and surface roughness of eroded-abraded enamel during chemo-mechanical cycling. Material and Methods: 28 human premolars were randomly divided into 4 groups according to preventive treatment (7/group): Group 1, artificial saliva; Group 2, PRG barrier coat; Group 3, NaF varnish; Group 4, NaF varnish + PRG barrier coat. Before treatment, specimens underwent 3 consecutive days of erosion/abrasion challenge (4-erosion “energy drink”, 2-abrasion cycles/day), and stored in artificial saliva in-between cycles, overnight. Treatment was applied following grouping, then another 3-day cycle was conducted. Microhardness and surface roughness were assessed at baseline, after first cycling before treatment, after treatment and second cycling. Comparisons between four groups were performed using Kruskal-Wallis test, within each group using Friedman test. Results: The highest median %change of enamel increase in microhardness and decrease in surface roughness were recorded for Groups 3 and 4, respectively. Group 2 showed the lowest median %change. There was no statistically significant difference between all groups regarding microhardness and surface roughness (p = 0.119 and 0.248, respectively). Conclusions: Irrespective of preventive treatment, microhardness and surface roughness of eroded-abraded enamel did improve after exposure to chemo-mechanical challenge. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| abrasion; erosion; preventive materials; titratable acidity | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 251 PDF Download: 157 |
||||
