In situ analysis of the effect of CO2 laser irradiation to control the progression of erosive and abrasive lesions on dental enamel

Author(s)

Taisa Penazzo Lepri

• Document type: Doctoral Thesis
• Press: Ribeirão Preto.
• Institution: Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Odontologia de Ribeirão Preto (PCARP/BC)
• Defense date: 2014-05-28

Examining board members

Silmara Aparecida Milori Corona; Maria Cristina Borsato; Aline Evangelista de Souza Gabriel; Alessandra Nara de Souza Rastelli; Walter Raucci Neto

• Advisor: Silmara Aparecida Milori Corona

Abstract

This study, composed of 2 in situ experiments, aimed to evaluate the effect of CO2 laser irradiation to control the progression of erosive lesions and, after, analyze the influence of abrasion on irradiated and eroded surfaces. At the first experiment, 56 slabs of bovine incisors (5x3x2.5mm) had its enamel surface divided in 4 areas: 1. Sound (reference area); 2. Initial erosion; 3. Treatment (irradiated or not with CO2 laser); 4. After in situ phase. The erosive challenge was performed with 1% citric acid (pH 2.3), during 5 minutes, 2x/day, for 2 days. The specimens were divided in 2 groups according to the surface treatment: CO2 laser irradiated (λ = 10.6 m; 0.5 W) and non-irradiated. After a 2-day-lead-in period, 14 volunteers wore an intraoral palatal device containing 2 specimens (irradiated and non-irradiated), in 2 intraoral phases of 5 days each. Following a crossover design, during the first phase, half of the volunteers immersed its device on 100mL of citric acid during 5 minutes, 3x/day, while the other half immersed on deionized water (control). Volunteers were crossed on the challenges on the second phase. The enamel wear was quantitatively determined by an optical profilometer and the morphology of enamel surface was qualitatively evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. Three-way ANOVA for repeated measures showed that there was no significant interaction between erosive challenge and CO2 laser irradiation (p=0.419). The erosive challenge significantly increased the enamel wear (p=0.001), regardless of irradiated or not with CO2 laser. There was no difference on the enamel wear of irradiated and non-irradiated specimens (p=0.513). At the second experiment, preparation and selection of bovine enamel specimens, induction of initial erosive lesion and treatments were performed as already described for the first experiment. After a 2-day-lead-in period, 12 volunteers wore and intraoral palatal device containing 2 irradiated and 2 non-irradiated specimens, at two intraoral phases of 5 days each. Following a split-mouth protocol, volunteers immersed the devices extra orally, during 5 minutes, in 1% citric acid, 3x/day for 5 days. One hour after each erosive challenge, one irradiated and one non-irradiated specimen were brushed with an electrical toothbrush and dentifrice slurry. The response variables were the same studied at the first experiment. Two-way ANOVA revealed that there was no significant interaction between erosive-abrasive challenge and CO2 laser irradiation (p=0.614). The laser irradiation did not influence on the enamel wear (p=0.742). The enamel wear presented by the specimens subjected to erosion + abrasion did not differ from that verified when the erosion was performed alone. It can be concluded that, in intraoral conditions, the CO2 laser irradiation did not controlled the progression of erosive lesions or erosive-abrasive lesions on enamel (AU)