The aim was to study the effect of lesion preparation technique and solution composition on remineralisation of artificial lesions in vitro. Lesions were prepared with similar total mineral loss, but different mineral distribution, i.e., low (14.0) or high R (34.8) values. Lesions from both groups were remineralised (10 days, 37°C) in two different solutions, with similar supersaturation with respect to hydroxyapatite (St), but calcium:phosphate ratios representing either hydroxyapatite stoichiometry or plaque fluid (PF). Remineralisation was quantified microradiographically, mineral distribution was compared with natural white-spot lesions. Mineral loss and depth decreased significantly, and surface-zone mineral content (Zmax) increased significantly, in all lesions. Overall there was a significant relationship of decreasing remineralisation with increasing Zmax, but not within either lesion type. PF was significantly more efficient than St in high-R lesions, with lesions remineralising almost completely in PF. Remineralisation was not significantly different in PF or St for low-R lesions but in high-R lesions, PF was more efficient than St, possibly through differences in relative saturations with respect to different calcium phosphates. Differences in area:solution ratios and baseline Zmax values may also have explained the different response to PF. Low-R lesions were similar to natural white-spot lesions in terms of mineral distribution, whereas high-R were not. Concluding, both lesion and remineralising solution type had a marked influence on remineralisation. It is proposed that use of low-R lesions would be more appropriate where more physiologically relevant mineral distribution is required, whereas high-R lesions would be appropriate for studying inherent remineralising efficiency.

Keywords:
Enamel, Lesion, Remineralisation, R parameter, Saturation
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
2007
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.