These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Influence of salivary conditioning and sucrose concentration on biofilm-mediated enamel demineralization.
    Author: Ayoub HM, Gregory RL, Tang Q, Lippert F.
    Journal: J Appl Oral Sci; 2020; 28():e20190501. PubMed ID: 32236356.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: The acquired pellicle formation is the first step in dental biofilm formation. It distinguishes dental biofilms from other biofilm types. OBJECTIVE: To explore the influence of salivary pellicle formation before biofilm formation on enamel demineralization. METHODOLOGY: Saliva collection was approved by Indiana University IRB. Three donors provided wax-stimulated saliva as the microcosm bacterial inoculum source. Acquired pellicle was formed on bovine enamel samples. Two groups (0.5% and 1% sucrose-supplemented growth media) with three subgroups (surface conditioning using filtered/pasteurized saliva; filtered saliva; and deionized water (DIW)) were included (n=9/subgroup). Biofilm was then allowed to grow for 48 h using Brain Heart Infusion media supplemented with 5 g/l yeast extract, 1 mM CaCl2.2H2O, 5% vitamin K and hemin (v/v), and sucrose. Enamel samples were analyzed for Vickers surface microhardness change (VHNchange), and transverse microradiography measuring lesion depth (L) and mineral loss (∆Z). Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA. RESULTS: The two-way interaction of sucrose concentration × surface conditioning was not significant for VHNchange (p=0.872), ∆Z (p=0.662) or L (p=0.436). Surface conditioning affected VHNchange (p=0.0079), while sucrose concentration impacted ∆Z (p<0.0001) and L (p<0.0001). Surface conditioning with filtered/pasteurized saliva resulted in the lowest VHNchange values for both sucrose concentrations. The differences between filtered/pasteurized subgroups and the two other surface conditionings were significant (filtered saliva p=0.006; DIW p=0.0075). Growing the biofilm in 1% sucrose resulted in lesions with higher ∆Z and L values when compared with 0.5% sucrose. The differences in ∆Z and L between sucrose concentration subgroups was significant, regardless of surface conditioning (both p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Within the study limitations, surface conditioning using human saliva does not influence biofilm-mediated enamel caries lesion formation as measured by transverse microradiography, while differences were observed using surface microhardness, indicating a complex interaction between pellicle proteins and biofilm-mediated demineralization of the enamel surface.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]