This preprint is under consideration at BMC Oral Health. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Potential of Different Fluoride Gels to Prevent Erosive Tooth wear caused by Gastroesophageal Reflux
Philipp Körner
University of Zurich
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: This in-vitro-study aimed to evaluate the potential of different fluoride gels to prevent gastroesophageal reflux induced erosive tooth wear.
Methods: Surface baseline profiles of a total of 50 bovine enamel specimens (randomly assigned to five groups (G1–5)) were recorded. All specimens were positioned in a custom made artificial oral cavity and perfused with artificial saliva (0.5 ml/min). Reflux was simulated 11 times a day during 12 hours by adding HCl (pH 3.0) for 30 s (flow rate 2 ml/min). During the remaining 12 hours (overnight), specimens were stored in artificial saliva and brushed twice a day (morning and evening) with a toothbrush and toothpaste slurry (15 brushing strokes). While specimens in the control group (G1) did not receive any further treatment, specimens in
G2–5 were coated with different fluoride gels (Elmex Gelée (G2); Paro Amin Fluor Gelée (G3); Paro Fluor Gelée Natriumfluorid (G4); Sensodyne ProSchmelz Fluorid Gelée (G5)) in the evening for 30 s. After 20 days, surface profiles were recorded again and enamel loss was determined by comparing them with the baseline profiles. The results were statistically analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey`s HSD post-hoc test.
Results: The overall highest mean wear of enamel (9.88 ± 1.73 µm) was observed in the control group (G1), where no fluoride gel was applied. It was significantly higher (p < 0.001) compared to all other groups. G2 (5.03 ± 1.43 µm) showed the best protection from hydrochloric acid induced erosion, though G3 (5.47 ± 0.63 µm, p = 0.918) and G4 (5.14 ± 0.82 µm, p > 0.999) revealed almost equal and statistically not different results. Enamel wear in G5 (6.64 ± 0.86 µm) was significantly higher compared to G2 (p = 0.028) and G4 (p = 0.047).
Conclusions: After 20 days of daily application, all investigated fluoride gels are able to significantly reduce gastroesophageal reflux induced loss of enamel.
Keywords
Dental erosion, erosive tooth wear, gastroesophageal reflux disease, erosion protection, fluoride gel
Figure 1
Figure 2
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 28 Dec, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 15 Feb, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #10 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #3 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #5 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #6 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #7 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #8 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #9 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #12 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #7 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #8 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #9 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #10 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #11 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Dec, 2020
Editor assigned
On 29 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 22 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 22 Dec, 2020
First submitted
On 16 Dec, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Dentistry
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at BMC Oral Health. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Potential of Different Fluoride Gels to Prevent Erosive Tooth wear caused by Gastroesophageal Reflux
Philipp Körner
University of Zurich
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 28 Dec, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 15 Feb, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #10 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #3 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #5 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #6 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #7 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #8 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #9 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #12 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #7 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #8 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #9 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #10 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #11 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Dec, 2020
Editor assigned
On 29 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 22 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 22 Dec, 2020
First submitted
On 16 Dec, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Dentistry
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: This in-vitro-study aimed to evaluate the potential of different fluoride gels to prevent gastroesophageal reflux induced erosive tooth wear.
Methods: Surface baseline profiles of a total of 50 bovine enamel specimens (randomly assigned to five groups (G1–5)) were recorded. All specimens were positioned in a custom made artificial oral cavity and perfused with artificial saliva (0.5 ml/min). Reflux was simulated 11 times a day during 12 hours by adding HCl (pH 3.0) for 30 s (flow rate 2 ml/min). During the remaining 12 hours (overnight), specimens were stored in artificial saliva and brushed twice a day (morning and evening) with a toothbrush and toothpaste slurry (15 brushing strokes). While specimens in the control group (G1) did not receive any further treatment, specimens in
G2–5 were coated with different fluoride gels (Elmex Gelée (G2); Paro Amin Fluor Gelée (G3); Paro Fluor Gelée Natriumfluorid (G4); Sensodyne ProSchmelz Fluorid Gelée (G5)) in the evening for 30 s. After 20 days, surface profiles were recorded again and enamel loss was determined by comparing them with the baseline profiles. The results were statistically analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey`s HSD post-hoc test.
Results: The overall highest mean wear of enamel (9.88 ± 1.73 µm) was observed in the control group (G1), where no fluoride gel was applied. It was significantly higher (p < 0.001) compared to all other groups. G2 (5.03 ± 1.43 µm) showed the best protection from hydrochloric acid induced erosion, though G3 (5.47 ± 0.63 µm, p = 0.918) and G4 (5.14 ± 0.82 µm, p > 0.999) revealed almost equal and statistically not different results. Enamel wear in G5 (6.64 ± 0.86 µm) was significantly higher compared to G2 (p = 0.028) and G4 (p = 0.047).
Conclusions: After 20 days of daily application, all investigated fluoride gels are able to significantly reduce gastroesophageal reflux induced loss of enamel.
Figure 1
Figure 2