This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Yamazaki, H. Articles by Margolis, H.C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Yamazaki, H. Articles by Margolis, H.C. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Enhanced Enamel Remineralization under Acidic Conditions in vitro

Department of Biomineralization, The Forsyth Institute, 140 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115, USA

View larger version (29K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Mean progressive changes in the mineral content (% Mineral) as a function of time (hrs) and depth of the lesion obtained by the microradiographic procedures described in MATERIALS & METHODS for: (a) surface-softened lesions exposed to the acidic remineralizing solution; (b) surface-softened lesions exposed to the neutral remineralizing solution; (c) subsurface lesions exposed to the acidic remineralizing solution; and (d) subsurface lesions exposed to the neutral remineralizing solution.

View larger version (43K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Changes in mineral content as a function of lesion depth and time. (a,b). Histograms showing changes in the mean mineral content (µm x % Mineral) in the Outer (0 – 100 µm), Middle (100 – 200 µm), and Inner (200 – 300 µm) portions of surface-softened (gray bars) and subsurface (white bars) lesions at selected times following exposure to the acidic (a) and the neutral (b) remineralizing solutions. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between Outer and Middle lesion portions are noted (**) and discussed in the text. Significant differences (*) were also observed between the change in mineral content of the Middle portion of surface-softened lesions exposed to the acidic (a) and neutral (b) remineralizing solutions. (c,d). Histograms showing the initial and final (701 hrs) mean mineral content (µm x % Mineral) in the Outer (0 – 100 µm), Middle (100 – 200 µm), and Inner (200 – 300 µm) portions of surface-softened (gray bars) and subsurface (white bars) following exposure to the acidic (c) and the neutral (d) remineralizing solutions. The portion of each bar with diagonal lines represents the initial mineral content, while the solid color portion represents mineral added through remineralization. The combination of these two mineral portions represents the mean final mineral content of lesions at the end of the experiment (701 hrs). It should be noted, for both acidic (c) and neutral (d) solutions, that a substantially greater percentage of added mineral relative to the initial mineral content (solid color) was deposited in the Outer portion of surface-softened (gray) lesions than in subsurface lesions (white). Error bars indicate standard deviations of mean values. aSince all lesions did not extend to 300 µm, valid comparisons cannot be made for changes observed in the Inner lesion portions.

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Comparisons of changes in mean % Mineral Recovery as a function of time (hrs) of exposure to each remineralizing solution and lesion type: (a) surface-softened lesions exposed to the acidic remineralizing solution () vs. surface-softened lesions exposed to the neutral remineralizing solution (); (b) subsurface lesions exposed to the acidic remineralizing solution () vs. subsurface lesions exposed to the neutral remineralizing solution (); (c) surface-softened lesions exposed to the acidic remineralizing solution () vs. subsurface lesions exposed to the acidic remineralizing solution (); and (d) surface-softened lesions exposed to the neutral remineralizing solution () vs. subsurface lesions exposed to the neutral remineralizing solution (). % Mineral Recovery was assessed as described in MATERIALS & METHODS. Error bars indicate standard deviations of mean values. Significant differences (p < 0.05) found at various timepoints are indicated (*) and discussed in the text.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 87, No. 6, 569-574 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910808700612


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?