Susceptibility of bovine dental enamel with initial erosion lesion to new erosive challenges

Abstract

This in vitro study evaluated the impact of initial erosion on the susceptibility of enamel to further erosive challenge. Thirty bovine enamel blocks were selected by surface hardness and randomized into two groups (n = 15): GC- group composed by enamel blocks without erosion lesion and GT- group composed by enamel blocks with initial erosion lesion. The baseline profile of each block was determined using the profilometer. The initial erosion was produced by immersing the blocks into HCl 0.01 M, pH 2.3 for 30 seconds, under stirring. The erosive cycling consisted of blocks immersion in hydrochloric acid (0.01 M, pH 2.3) for 2 minutes, followed by immersion in artificial saliva for 120 minutes. This procedure was repeated 4 times a day for 5 days, and the blocks were kept in artificial saliva overnight. After erosive cycling, final profile measurement was performed. Profilometry measured the enamel loss by the superposition of initial and final profiles. Data were analyzed by t-test (p<0.05). The result showed no statistically significant difference between groups (GS = 14.60±2.86 and GE = .14.69±2.21 μm). The presence of initial erosion on bovine dental enamel does not enhance its susceptibility to new erosive challenges.

About the Authors:

Gabriela Cristina de Oliveira

Roles Data curation, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Writing – original draft

Affiliation: Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil

ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3338-8625

Guida Paola Genovez Tereza

Roles Visualization, Writing – original draft

Affiliation: Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil

Ana Paula Boteon

Roles Funding acquisition, Investigation

Affiliation: Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil

Brunna Mota Ferrairo

Roles Funding acquisition, Investigation

Affiliation: Department of Prosthodontics Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil

Priscilla Santana Pinto Gonçalves

Roles Data curation, Investigation

Affiliation: Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil

Thiago Cruvinel da Silva

Roles Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil

Heitor Marques Honório

Roles Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil

Daniela Rios

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil

Introduction

Dental erosion is defined as the tooth surface loss caused by acids of non-bacterial origin[1–3] The pathophysiology of dental erosion, however, is more complex than previously described[4]. Erosion is currently considered a near surface demineralization, comprising two developmental stages. The initial erosive stage, termed dental erosion, corresponds to enamel softening, which results in losses of mechanical resistance and structural integrity [5, 6]. The following process, so-called erosive tooth wear, occurs by either prolonged demineralization of tooth surface or the action of mechanical forces onto the softened area, leading to irreversible dental enamel loss[5–7].

Because the prevalence of erosion is high[8–10], studies have been conducted to search preventive methods and early treatments for erosive tooth loss[11–13]. Many of them were conducted in vitro and despite their limitations, these studies have been used as an important tool in testing the effectiveness of methods to prevent erosion, since clinical trials present low accuracy of available methods for the measurement of tooth tissue loss[14]. Laboratory protocols for dental erosion are diverse in type, exposure periods to the acids[15–18], types of saliva[19] and developmental stage of enamel erosive lesion[18, 20–24]. Regarding the stage of the erosive lesion, studies have been conducted on noneroded[18, 22, 23] or eroded enamel[20, 21, 24]. Generally, noneroded enamel is used to test a given treatment to prevent the occurrence of erosion by simulating a healthy patient at risk in developing dental erosion. On the other hand, eroded enamel is employed to test treatments capable of inhibiting the progression of erosion, attempting to mimic a patient already with the disease[25, 26]. Since the eroded softened layer might not be totally rehardened by saliva[19, 27–29] this layer could influence the susceptibility to erosion. However, to the best of our knowledge, the impact of an erosive challenge on eroded enamel has not been investigated yet.

Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the susceptibility of the tooth enamel with initial erosion lesion to new erosive challenges in relation to noneroded enamel.

Material and methods

This study was conducted in vitro and the factor under study was enamel susceptibility to erosive tooth wear at two levels, noneroded enamel (GC-control) and enamel with initial erosion lesion (GT-test). Thirty bovine enamel specimens were randomly divided into two groups. The sample of 15 specimens for each group was calculated based on a pilot study, considering an estimated standard deviation of 1.39 μm, an expected difference in means of 1.5 μm, an alpha error of 5% and a beta error of 20%. The initial erosion lesion of group GT was produced in vitro through the immersion of the specimens into HCl 0.01 M, pH 2.3 for 30 s. Next, all specimens were subjected to erosive cycling for 5 days. The null hypothesis was that there would not be difference in the behavior of noneroded and previously eroded dental enamel against erosive challenge. To test this hypothesis, the response variable used was the enamel loss (μm) analyzed by profilometry.

The enamel specimens were prepared from bovine teeth, which were obtained from the Mondelli Food Industry S.A. (Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil). The crowns were separated from their roots and embedded into self-curing acrylic resin (JET, Campo Limpo Paulista, SP, BR). Following, the embedded specimens were flattened and polished under constant tap water cooling using a Metallographic Polishing Machine (APL 4, Arotec, Cotia) with silicon carbide paper discs (300, 600, and 1200 grade papers; Extec Corp, Enfield, USA), ending with felt paper moistened with 1 μm diamond suspension (Buehler, Ltd., Lake Bluff, IL,USA).

The superficial hardness was evaluated with the aid of a hardness tester (HMV-2000/ Shimadzu Corporation) linked to a computer and specific software to analyze the images (Cams-Win-New Age Industries). The specimens with mean hardness values 10% above or below the general mean were discarded (mean surface hardness of 351 ± 15 KHN). Forty-five specimens were selected, fifteen for group GC and thirty for group GT. Considering possible losses after erosive demineralization, group GT received more specimens.

Initial erosion lesion was obtained in vitro by immersing GT specimens into hydrochloridric acid (0.01 M, pH 2.3, 17.6 mL/ specimens) for 30 s, under stirring at 50 rpm speed, and environmental temperature of 25°C[21]. In a pilot study[22], the aforementioned protocol provoked erosion with surface softening but without detectable wear. Superficial hardness was evaluated again to confirm the lesion formation and to select only 15 specimens (mean surface hardness of 171 ± 12 KHN).

The specimens were subjected to erosive cycling for 5 days. Erosive cycling was performed by immersing the specimens into hydrochloridric acid (0.01 M, pH 2.3, 17.6 mL/ specimens) for 2 min. Following the erosive attack, the specimens were washed under deionized water for approximately 20 s, and immersed into artificial saliva[19] for 2 h. This procedure was repeated 4 times per day. At the end of each cycling day, the specimens were immersed in artificial saliva overnight (14 h) at 25°C.

The wear measurement was performed with the aid of a surface profilometer (Mahr Perthometer,Göttingen, Germany), linked to a computer with contour software (MarSurf XCR 20). Before the erosive challenge enamel specimens were marked with a scalpel blade No. 11 (Embramac, Itapira, SP, Brazil) to delimit three areas: two lateral ones (reference areas) and the central area (test area of 2.0 mm2). Specimens were fixed to a device to standardize their position and to allow the record of the location of each profile. Prior to erosive cycling, five readings were executed at determined distances (2.25, 2.0, 1.75, 1.5 and 1.25 μm). The graphics of each read were saved individually. To maintain the integrity of the reference areas during the erosive cycling, the two-thirds located at the borders of the specimens were protected with nail varnish (Maybelline Colorama, Cosbra Cosmetics Ltda, São Paulo, SP, Brazil).

After cycling, the nail varnish was removed from the specimens and new five readings were carried out exactly on the same sites of the initial readings. Following, the initial and final graphs of each five readings were superimposed. The average points were selected for measuring the distance between the graphs in height, defining the enamel loss in millimeters and converted to micrometers.

Data were statistically analyzed by SigmaPlot software for Windows version 12.3 (2011 Systat Software, Germany). Since the assumptions of equality of variances and normal distribution were satisfied T-test was applied. The significant limit was set at 5%. The raw data and the statistical analysis are in S1 Table.

Results

The results showed that after erosive cycling, both the noneroded enamel and the enamel with initial erosion lesion exhibited similar levels of erosive wear (p>0.05) (Table 1).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. Mean enamel loss and standard deviation of two groups (noneroded and eroded enamel) after the erosive cycling.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182347.t001

Discussion

Although studies use noneroded or eroded/demineralized enamel as if they present different behaviors, the findings of the present study demonstrated that there were no statistically significant differences in enamel loss between noneorded enamel and enamel with initial erosion lesion for bovine teeth. Two factors that could influence these results should be considered: the intensity of initial erosion lesion and the aggressiveness of the erosive challenge.

The progressive stages of dental erosion includes the softening of the outermost enamel surface by the acid attack, which forms small pores on the enamel surface and demineralization of the near-surface layer[4, 30] that characterizes the initial erosion lesion known as dental erosion[4]. The continuity of acid attacks or the incidence of abrasive forces such as chewing food or toothbrushing result in enamel dissolution in which surface loss occurs, this stage is named erosive tooth wear[4]. This study considered the initial lesion to show surface softening but no erosive wear of the enamel. Far as we are aware, the literature does not report a standardized method to obtain this lesion[15, 26, 29, 31–33].

Rakhmatullina et al.[29] measured the height loss of the indentations on the enamel surface after progressive erosive challenges to evaluate the limit period that the surface was demineralized without losing height. Until 2 min of enamel immersion into citric acid 0.034 M, pH 3.6, no alteration in the height of indentations was observed; however, after 4 minutes, loss was seen. To conduct the present methodology, a pilot study was carried out by sequentially immersing (at 15 s interval) the enamel into HCl 0.01 M, pH 2.3 and verifying the sharpness of the margins of the initial indentations obtained with the aid of Knoop indenter when the enamel was sound[22]. Although this method could be considered less accurate, it produced an initial lesion with a shorter time (30 s). The different acid types, with different pH values, explained and justified the time period differences to obtain lesions with similar features. Consensus exists on the fact that the enamel erosion level caused by erosive beverages, acids, juices and foods is associated with the amount of titratable acid, exposure time, temperature, solution concentration and pH, under different conditions[26, 33–37]. Additionally, in shorter challenges (1–5 min), the erosive capacity is determined mainly by acid pH and type, but not by the amount of titratable acid or acid concentration[33, 38].

In another study, Brevik et al.[39], analysed the enamel hardness after erosive challenge with citric acid 0.034 M, pH 3.6 at 4 min intervals for 32 min and showed the loss of enamel structure at the fourth minute, confirming the previous results of the same group. Additionally, the authors observed a fast hardness loss at the first minutes of erosion, followed by a stabilization period in which hardness remained constant. The authors justified that in the process of the initial lesion, corresponding to the phase of enamel softening, the hardness decreased because of the loss of tooth minerals. The subsequent prolonged challenge results in substance loss, with the remaining superficial enamel becoming softened[39]. By continuing with the erosive challenge, this softened layer reaches balance and does not progress, but enamel structure is still lost(30). The results of Brevik et al.[39] showed that when there is hardness stability, enamel erosive wear probably already occurred. The severe intensity of the erosive challenge to form the initial erosion lesion probably reached this balanced stage of lesion softening with enamel loss in many studies[15, 20, 38]. In this context, it will be of interest also to compare the behavior of the sound enamel with the eroded enamel on a stage of balanced superficial hardness.

Another factor to be discussed is the strength of the erosive challenge. Before performing this study it was hypothesized that a porous surface (initial erosion lesion) would exhibit a greater exposed damaged area which might increase enamel susceptibility to erosive dental wear. However, the present erosive protocol was strong enough to similarly promote surface loss on eroded and noneroded surface. This study employed an erosive challenge very common in the literature[35, 40, 41]. Less aggressive challenges when compared to the one applied in the present study, by either acid type, pH or cycling period could result in a smaller impact on both noneroded and previously eroded enamel. Maybe the initial differences existing between them might be maintained until the end of a less aggressive challenge. On future studies, it is important to evaluate the behavior of noneroded and initially eroded enamel under different degrees of challenge aggressiveness.

It is important to bear in mind that this study used bovine enamel, which is widely used in studies to analyze the effect of various conditions on enamel erosion with good reproducibility of results when comparing to human teeth[18]. In addition, the enamel surface of the specimens was ground and polished, removing the outermost enamel layer. This procedure reduces the variation among the specimens[42]. On the other hand, this outermost layer is hypermineralised by fluoride and saliva during the de- and remineralization processes[43]. Since in the present study this outer enamel was removed by the grinding procedures, it is assumed that the susceptibility to dissolution have been higher when compared to native enamel. However, the interference on results might be minimal because both groups under study were tested on the same condition. In further studies, the impact of initial erosion on the susceptibility of enamel to erosive challenges might also be evaluated in situ with human teeth, to better reproduce the clinical situation. When considering in situ models the main advantage is the exposition of the enamel specimens to the oral cavity allowing the contact with saliva, which is the most important biological factor on the etiology of erosion[14].

In conclusion, considering the limitations and the results of this in vitro study, the softened enamel resulting from initial erosion is as susceptible to a new erosive challenge as the sound one.

Supporting information

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

S1 Table. Raw data of enamel loss of the studied groups (noneroded and eroded enamel) and statistical analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182347.s001

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by FAPESP Processes 2011/16208-4, 2011/12395-4 and 2011/11814-3.

Citation: Oliveira GCd, Tereza GPG, Boteon AP, Ferrairo BM, Gonçalves PSP, Silva TCd, et al. (2017) Susceptibility of bovine dental enamel with initial erosion lesion to new erosive challenges. PLoS ONE 12(8): e0182347. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182347

References

1. Imfeld T. Dental erosion. Definition, classification and links. Eur J Oral Sci. 1996; 104: 151–155. pmid:8804882.

2. Eccles JD. Dental erosion of nonindustrial origin. A clinical survey and classification. J Prosthet Dent. 1979; 42: 649–653. pmid:292776.

3. Moss SJ. Dental erosion. Int Dent J. 1998; 48:529–539. pmid:9881285.

4. Lussi A, Carvalho TS. Erosive tooth wear: a multifactorial condition of growing concern and increasing knowledge. Monogr Oral Sci. 2014; 25:1–15. pmid:24993253.

5. Ganss C, Lussi A, Schlueter N. The histological features and physical properties of eroded dental hard tissues. Monogr Oral Sci. 2014; 25:99–107. pmid:24993260.

6. Lussi A, Schlueter N, Rakhmatullina E, Ganss C. Dental erosion—an overview with emphasis on chemical and histopathological aspects. Caries Res. 2011;45:2–12. pmid:21625128.

7. Huysmans MC, Chew HP, Ellwood RP. Clinical studies of dental erosion and erosive wear. Caries Res. 2011;45:60–68. pmid:21625134.

8. Ganss C, Klimek J, Giese K. Dental erosion in children and adolescents—a cross-sectional and longitudinal investigation using study models. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001; 29:264–271. pmid:11515640.

9. El Aidi H, Bronkhorst EM, Huysmans MC, Truin GJ. Dynamics of tooth erosion in adolescents: a 3-year longitudinal study. J Dent. 2010;38:131–137. pmid:19799959.

10. Salas MM, Nascimento GG, Huysmans MC, Demarco FF. Estimated prevalence of erosive tooth wear in permanent teeth of children and adolescents: an epidemiological systematic review and meta-regression analysis. J Dent. 2015; 43:42–50. pmid:25446243.

11. Buzalaf MA, Magalhães AC, Wiegand A. Alternatives to fluoride in the prevention and treatment of dental erosion. Monogr Oral Sci. 2014; 25:244–252. pmid:24993272.

12. Magalhães AC, Wiegand A, Rios D, Buzalaf MA, Lussi A. Fluoride in dental erosion. Monogr Oral Sci. 2011; 22:158–170. pmid:21701198.

13. Huysmans MC, Young A, Ganss C. The role of fluoride in erosion therapy. Monogr Oral Sci. 2014; 25:230–243. pmid:24993271.

14. West NX, Davies M, Amaechi BT. In vitro and in situ erosion models for evaluating tooth substance loss. Caries Res. 2011; 45:43–52. pmid:21625132.

15. Ganss C, Von Hinckeldey J, Tolle A, Schulze K, Klimek J, Schlueter N. Efficacy of the stannous ion and a biopolymer in toothpastes on enamel erosion/abrasion. J Dent. 2012; 40:1036–1043. pmid:22917561.

16. West NX, Seong J, Hellin N, Eynon H, Barker ML, He T. A clinical study to measure anti-erosion properties of a stabilized stannous fluoride dentifrice relative to a sodium fluoride/triclosan dentifrice. Int J Dent Hyg. 2017; 15:113–119. pmid:26094972.

17. Passos VF, de Vasconcellos AA, Pequeno JH, Rodrigues LK, Santiago SL. Effect of commercial fluoride dentifrices against hydrochloric acid in an erosion-abrasion model. Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19:71–76. pmid:24578231.

18. Rios D, Honório HM, Magalhães AC, Delbem AC, Machado MA, Silva SM, et al. Effect of salivary stimulation on erosion of human and bovine enamel subjected or not to subsequent abrasion: an in situ/ex vivo study. Caries Res. 2006; 40:218–223. pmid:16707870.

19. Ionta FQ, Mendonça FL, de Oliveira GC, de Alencar CR, Honório HM, Magalhães AC, et al. In vitro assessment of artificial saliva formulations on initial enamel erosion remineralization. J Dent. 2014; 42:175–179. pmid:24269764.

20. Lepri TP, Colucci V, Turssi CP, Corona SA. Permeability of eroded enamel following application of different fluoride gels and CO2 laser. Lasers Med Sci. 2013; 28:235–240. pmid:22639231.

21. Oliveira GC, Boteon AP, Ionta FQ, Moretto MJ, Honório HM, Wang L, et al. In vitro effects of resin infiltration on enamel erosion inhibition. Oper Dent. 2015; 40:492–502. pmid:25587972.

22. Oliveira GC, Dionisio EJ, Ferrairo BM, Gonçalves PSP, Jordão MC, Silva TC, et al. Use of different methods to measurement the erosive enamel wear. J Dent Res. 2015; 93spec iss: abstract number 1087.

23. Levy FM, Magalhães AC, Gomes MF, Comar LP, Rios D, Buzalaf MA. The erosion and abrasion-inhibiting effect of TiF(4) and NaF varnishes and solutions on enamel in vitro. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2012; 22:11–16. pmid:21689178.

24. Wiegand A, Schwerzmann M, Sener B, Magalhaes AC, Roos M, Ziebolz D, et al. Impact of toothpaste slurry abrasivity and toothbrush filament stiffness on abrasion of eroded enamel—an in vitro study. Acta Odontol Scand. 2008; 66:231–235. pmid:18622830.

25. Rochel ID, Souza JG, Silva TC, Pereira AF, Rios D, Buzalaf MA, et al. Effect of experimental xylitol and fluoride-containing dentifrices on enamel erosion with or without abrasion in vitro. J Oral Sci. 2011; 53:163–168. pmid:21712620.

26. Young A, Tenuta LM. Initial erosion models. Caries Res. 2011; 45:33–42. pmid:21625131.

27. Amaechi BT, Higham SM, Edgar WM. Techniques for the production of dental eroded lesions in vitro. J Oral Rehabil. 1999; 26:97–102. pmid:10080305.

28. de Alencar CR, Magalhães AC, de Andrade Moreira Machado MA, de Oliveira TM, Honório HM, Rios D. In situ effect of a commercial CPP-ACP chewing gum on the human enamel initial erosion. J Dent. 2014; 42:1502–1507. pmid:25174948.

29. Rakhmatullina E, Bossen A, Höschele C, Wang X, Beyeler B, Meier C, et al. Application of the specular and diffuse reflection analysis for in vitro diagnostics of dental erosion: correlation with enamel softening, roughness, and calcium release. J Biomed Opt. 2011; 16:107002. pmid:22029364.

30. Shellis RP, Barbour ME, Jesani A, Lussi A. Effects of buffering properties and undissociated acid concentration on dissolution of dental enamel in relation to pH and acid type. Caries Res. 2013; 47:601–611. pmid:24061229.

31. Rakhmatullina E, Beyeler B, Lussi A. Inhibition of enamel erosion by stannous and fluoride containing rinsing solutions. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2013; 123:192–198. pmid:23519818.

32. Wiegand A, Attin T. Design of erosion/abrasion studies—insights and rational concepts. Caries Res. 2011; 45:53–59. pmid:21625133.

33. Hanning SM, Kieser JA, Ferguson MM, Reid M, Medlicott NJ. The use of lithium as a marker for the retention of liquids in the oral cavity after rinsing. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18:1533–1537. pmid:24264639.

34. Larsen MJ, Nyvad B. Enamel erosion by some soft drinks and orange juices relative to their pH, buffering effect and contents of calcium phosphate. Caries Res. 1999; 33:81–87. pmid:9831784

35. Magalhães AC, Levy FM, Souza BM, Cardoso CA, Cassiano LP, Pessan JP, et al. Inhibition of tooth erosion by milk containing different fluoride concentrations: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2014; 42:498–502. pmid:24373857.

36. Rios D, Honório HM, Magalhães AC, Wiegand A, de Andrade Moreira Machado MA, Buzalaf MA. Light cola drink is less erosive than the regular one: an in situ/ex vivo study. J Dent. 2009; 37:163–166. pmid:19097679.

37. Cairns AM, Watson M, Creanor SL, Foye RH. The pH and titratable acidity of a range of diluting drinks and their potential effect on dental erosion. J Dent. 2002; 30:313–317. pmid:12554112

38. Schlueter N, Klimek J, Ganss C. In vitro efficacy of experimental tin- and fluoride-containing mouth rinses as anti-erosive agents in enamel. J Dent. 2009; 37:944–948. pmid:19660515.

39. Brevik SC, Lussi A, Rakhmatullina E. A new optical detection method to assess the erosion inhibition by in vitro salivary pellicle layer. J Dent. 2013; 41:428–435. pmid:23454333.

40. Magalhaes AC, Moraes SM, Rios D, Wiegand A, Buzalaf MA. The erosive potential of 1% citric acid supplemented by different minerals: an in vitro study. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2010; 8:41–5. pmid:20480053.

41. Faller RV, Eversole SL, Saunders-Burkhardt K. Protective benefits of a stabilised stannous-containing fluoride dentifrice against erosive acid damage. Int Dent J. 2014; 64:29–34. pmid:24571702.

42. Ganss C, Klimek J, Schwarz N. A comparative profilometric in vitro study of the susceptibility of polished and natural human enamel and dentine surfaces to erosive demineralization. Arch Oral Biol. 2000; 45:897–902. pmid:10973563.

43. Cardoso CA, Magalhães AC, Rios D, Lima JE. Cross-sectional hardness of enamel from human teeth at different posteruptive ages. Caries Res. 2009; 43:491–4. pmid:20016180.