Microhardness and roughness of infiltrated white spot lesions submitted to different challenges

dc.contributor.authorNeres, Y. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorModa, M. D. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorChiba, E. K. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorBriso, A. L.F. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorPessan, J. P. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorFagundes, T. C. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-11T17:13:16Z
dc.date.available2018-12-11T17:13:16Z
dc.date.issued2017-07-01
dc.description.abstractA white spot lesion is the first clinical sign of a caries lesion and represents mineral loss from the enamel subsurface. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microhardness and surface roughness of white spot lesions after application of a resin infiltrant and subjection to different challenges. Caries-like lesions were induced in bovine enamel discs (n=50), and the specimens were randomly divided into five study groups (n=10): demineralized enamel (negative control, G1), infiltrated enamel (G2), infiltrated enamel submitted to brushing (G3), infiltrated enamel submitted to pH cycling (G4), and infiltrated enamel submitted to artificial aging (G5). Half of each enamel surface was used as its own positive control. Roughness data were analyzed using the Kruskal- Wallis test followed by the Dunn test. Results from microhardness were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance, followed by the Tukey test for multiple comparisons. The level of significance was set at 5%. Microhardness and roughness values obtained from the test side of the specimens were significantly lower compared with the sound enamel for all groups. Microhardness values obtained for G2, G3, and G5 were not significantly different. Values found for G1 were significantly lower compared with those for G2, G3, and G5. The lowest microhardness values were observed for G4, which was significantly different from the other groups. Surface roughness was not significantly different between G2 and G3. The resin infiltrant presented superiority over the unprotected white spot lesions, as they were more resistant to mechanical and aging challenges. However, resin infiltration was not able to reestablish the properties of sound enamel and was not resistant to a new cariogenic challenge.en
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Restorative Dentistry São Paulo State University (Unesp) School of Dentistry, R. José Bonifácio, 1193
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Restorative Dentistry Araçatuba Dental School UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry and Public Health São Paulo State University (Unesp) School of Dentistry
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Restorative Dentistry São Paulo State University (Unesp) School of Dentistry, R. José Bonifácio, 1193
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Restorative Dentistry Araçatuba Dental School UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry and Public Health São Paulo State University (Unesp) School of Dentistry
dc.format.extent428-435
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2341/16-144-L
dc.identifier.citationOperative Dentistry, v. 42, n. 4, p. 428-435, 2017.
dc.identifier.doi10.2341/16-144-L
dc.identifier.issn0361-7734
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85022333225
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/174879
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofOperative Dentistry
dc.relation.ispartofsjr1,180
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceScopus
dc.titleMicrohardness and roughness of infiltrated white spot lesions submitted to different challengesen
dc.typeArtigo
unesp.author.lattes5761956467234702[4]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-6126-1760[4]
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp), Faculdade de Odontologia, Araçatubapt
unesp.departmentOdontologia Restauradora - FOApt

Arquivos