10.6084/m9.figshare.7647329.v1
Maisa Camillo Jordão
Maisa Camillo
Jordão
Franciny Querobim Ionta
Franciny Querobim
Ionta
Bianca Tozi Portaluppe Bergantin
Bianca Tozi Portaluppe
Bergantin
Fernanda Lyrio Mendonça
Fernanda Lyrio
Mendonça
Natália Mello dos Santos
Natália Mello dos
Santos
Heitor Marques Honório
Heitor Marques
Honório
Thais Marchini de Oliveira
Thais Marchini de
Oliveira
Daniela Rios
Daniela
Rios
Influence of mandibular and palatal intraoral appliances on erosion in situ study outcome
SciELO journals
2019
Dental erosion
Enamel
Protocols
2019-01-30 02:40:49
Dataset
https://scielo.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Influence_of_mandibular_and_palatal_intraoral_appliances_on_erosion_in_situ_study_outcome/7647329
<div><p>Abstract The standardization of in situ protocols for dental erosion is important to enable comparison between studies. Objective: Thus, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the influence of the location of in situ intraoral appliance (mandibular X palatal) on the extent of enamel loss induced by erosive challenges and to evaluate the comfort of the appliances. Material and Methods: One hundred and sixty bovine enamel blocks were selected according to their initial surface hardness and randomly divided into two groups: GI - palatal appliance and GII - mandibular appliance. Twenty volunteers wore simultaneously one palatal appliance (containing 4 enamel blocks) and two mandibular appliances (each one containing 2 enamel blocks). Four times per day during 5 days, the volunteers immersed their appliances in 0.01 M hydrochloric acid for 2 minutes, washed and reinserted them into the oral cavity for 2 hours until the next erosive challenge. After the end of the in situ phase, the volunteers answered a questionnaire regarding the comfort of the appliances. The loss of tissue in the enamel blocks was determined profilometrically. Data were statistically analyzed by paired t-test, Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test (p<0.05). Results: The enamel blocks allocated in palatal appliances (GI) presented significantly higher erosive wear when compared to the blocks fixed in mandibular appliances (GII). The volunteers reported more comfort when using the palatal appliance. Conclusions: Therefore, the palatal appliance is more comfortable and resulted in higher enamel loss compared to the mandibular one.</p></div>