Análise perfilométrica da ação de diferentes tipos de salivas artificiais em erosão dental

• Autor(a) principal: Arantes, Gabriela Souza [UNESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Tipo de documento: Trabalho de conclusão de curso
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/11449/156561; http://www.athena.biblioteca.unesp.br/exlibris/bd/capelo/2018-05-10/000899569.pdf
• topic: Erosão dentária; Saliva; Dentes - Raízes

The aim of this study was to evaluate the erosion-preventive effect of different artificial saliva formulations in vitro. Cylindrical dentin samples were obtained from the roots of bovine teeth, they were embedded in acrylic resin and, after polishing, the surface profiles were measured using a contact profilometer. Subsequently, the samples were randomly distributed into 10 groups (n = 20), according to the storage medium. The tested solutions were: deionized water and 4 solutions of artificial saliva according the formulations described by Klimek, Vieira, Eisenburger and Amaechi. For each of them the addition of mucin was made or not. The samples were stored in their respective solution for 120 min under mechanical stirring. They were then subjected to erosion for 60s with HCl (pH 2.6) and again stored for another 120 min and then subjected to a second cycle of erosive challenge (HCl, pH: 2.6, 60s), after that the profiles were measured again. The data were analyzed in relation to their normal distribution using the Kolmogorov Smirnov test and the statistical analysis was performed using the ANOVA 2 way (saliva type and presence of mucin) and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). The results of the ANOVA test showed significant statistical difference for the factor saliva type (p=0,00) and for the interaction between them (p=0,04, for the factor presence of mucin there was not statistical difference (p=0,36). The results of the Tukey test were: Deionized water: 4.60 ± 0.91 A; Deionized water + Mucine: 4.07 ± 0.93 AB; Amaechi: 3.72 ± 0.83 BC; Klimek: 3.60 ± 0.91 BC; Amaechi + Mucine: 3.34 ± 0.73 BC; Vieira: 3.31 ± 0.60 C; Klimek + Mucine: 3.27 ± 0.57 C; Vieira + Mucine: 3.20 ± 0.58 C; Eisenburger: 2.36 ± 0.45 D; Eisenburger + Mucine: 2.18 ± 0.54 D. The conclusion is that the addition of mucin to the solutions did not increase the effectiveness in preventing tooth erosion. However, among the solutions .....(Complete abstract eletronic access below)