Influence of Surfactants and Fluoride Against Enamel Erosion
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Original Paper Caries Res 2019;53:1–9 Received: October 3, 2017 DOI: 10.1159/000488207 Accepted after revision: February 22, 2018 Published online: J ne 6, 2018 u Influence of Surfactants and Fluoride against Enamel Erosion a, b a Rayssa Ferreira Zanatta Daniele Mara da Silva Ávila a a Karen Mayumi Miyamoto Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres a Alessandra Bühler Borges a Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University – UNESP, b São José dos Campos, Brazil; Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, University of Taubaté, Taubaté, Brazil Keywords among the surfactants regarding protein adsorption. Micro- Fluoride · pH cycling · Profilometry · Salivary pellicle · hardness showed that SLS reduced NaF protection. P20 (1 Surfactant and 1.5%) and CAPB 1.5% presented a protective effect, but lower than the NaF solution. Profilometry showed that CAPB protected enamel, but no agent associated with NaF pro- Abstract moted a higher protection than the NaF solution alone. KOH- This study investigated the effect of surfactants associated soluble fluoride analysis showed that all surfactants reduced with sodium fluoride (NaF) on enamel erosion prevention, the fluoride adsorption on the enamel surface. Therefore, using an erosion-remineralization in vitro model. Sodium the surfactants tested (except for P20) changed the enamel lauryl sulfate (SLS), polysorbate 20 (P20), and cocoamidopro- surface energy. The SLS decreased the protective potential pyl betaine (CAPB) were tested, at concentrations of 1.0 and of NaF on initial erosion, but no tested agent interfered with 1.5%, and associated or not with NaF (275 ppm). The control the protective effect of NaF on enamel erosive wear. groups were distilled water and the NaF solution. Bovine © 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel enamel samples (n = 12) were prepared and submitted to a 5-day cycling model: acid challenge (0.3% citric acid, pH 2.6, 4×/day), human saliva (2 h, 4×/day), and the treatment solu- Dental erosion is a multifactorial process character- tions (2 min, 2×/day). The protective potential of the agents ized by the chemical demineralization of tooth structures against initial erosion was assessed by microhardness and promoted by non-bacterial intrinsic or extrinsic acids the surface loss by profilometry. Enamel surface wettability and chelating agents [Lussi and Carvalho, 2014]. Before was determined by goniometry, protein adsorption was coming into contact with the enamel, the acid must dif- measured by spectroscopy (FTIR), and the KOH-soluble fluo- fuse through the acquired pellicle [Featherstone and Lus- ride was quantified. Goniometry showed that SLS and CAPB si, 2006]. The enamel acquired pellicle (EAP) is a film, increased enamel wettability. No differences were found free from bacteria, that covers dental tissues and is com- © 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel Alessandra Bühler Borges Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology – UNESP Avenida Francisco José Longo 777, Jardim São Dimas E-Mail [email protected] São José dos Campos, SP 12245-000 (Brazil) www.karger.com/cre E-Mail alessandra @ ict.unesp.br Downloaded by: UNESP Universidade Estdual Paulista 186.217.236.55 - 5/29/2019 7:02:07 PM posed of several proteins, such as mucins, glycoproteins, of sodium fluoride (with or without NaF – 275 ppm). The study and proline-rich proteins [Hannig et al., 2005; Buzalaf et variables were surface wettability characterized by contact angle, absorbance of proteins on enamel by Fourier transformed infrared al., 2012]. It acts as a diffusion barrier or semipermeable (FTIR) spectroscopy, surface microhardness (SMH) for initial ero- membrane that prevents the direct contact between the sion analysis, surface loss (µm) measured by contact profilometry acids and the tooth surface [Lussi et al., 2011], thus pro- for erosive wear assessment, and fluoride adsorption on enamel tecting enamel against demineralization [Buzalaf et al., (KOH-soluble fluoride). 2012; Vukosavljevic et al., 2014]. Sample Preparation Oral hygiene products, such as dentifrices and mouth- For the surface energy analysis, 35 crowns from freshly extract- washes, are commonly used to remove organic material ed bovine incisors were embedded in acrylic resin (Extec Fast Cure from tooth surfaces and act over the biofilm control Acrylic, Extec Corp., Enfield, CT, USA) using a cylindrical silicone [Veeregowda et al., 2011]. Surfactants present in these matrix. After curing, the specimens were flattened with SiC abra- products’ composition can influence the adsorption of sive paper #1,200 (FEPA P, Struers, Ballerup, Denmark) under ir- rigation at a polishing machine (DP-10, Panambra Industrial e salivary proteins [van der Mei et al., 2002; Veeregowda et Técnica SA, São Paulo, Brazil) until an area of 9 mm2 on the labial al., 2011], potentially affecting the EAP formation. Also, surface was exposed. these oral hygiene products often contain fluorides, such For the spectroscopy and erosion analysis, cylindrical enamel as sodium fluoride, which presents a protective effect specimens (n = 12) with a 3-mm diameter were obtained from the against dental erosion [Ganss et al., 2008; Jager et al., labial surface of the bovine crowns using a custom-made dia- mond-coated trephine mill. The specimens’ heights were stan- 2013]. This protective action is attributed to the interac- dardized to 2 mm by wearing down the dentin surface with water- tion of fluoride with calcium [Magalhaes et al., 2009, cooled SiC abrasive papers (#1,200 grit, FEPA P, Struers). 2011], decreasing the enamel dissolution rate. However, For the erosion analysis, the cylindrical specimens were em- previous findings speculate that the presence of surfac- bedded in self-curing acrylic resin using a silicone mold (6 mm in tants, such as sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), can influence diameter and 3 mm in depth), leaving a 0.1-mm enamel projection as previously described [Ávila et al., 2017]. The specimens were the fluoride ions’ availability and their binding to tooth then ground flat and polished with water-cooled sequential SiC structures [Barkvoll et al., 1988b; Zero, 2006]. Addition- abrasive papers (#1,200, #2,400, and #4,000 grit, FEPA P, Struers) ally, detergents can interact with hydroxyapatite [Barkvoll coupled in a polishing machine at 300 rpm for 30, 60, and 120 s, et al., 1988a] and also modulate the abrasiveness of den- respectively. Specimens were sonicated in deionized water for 10 tifrices [Moore and Addy, 2005]. min after each paper grit change. The specimens presenting cracks and imperfections under the stereomicroscope examination (×20; Although SLS is the most common surfactant found in Stemi 2000, Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) were replaced. Af- dentifrices, it is usually related to alterations in oral mu- ter preparation, the specimens were stored in relative humidity at cosa, affecting epithelial surfaces [Neppelberg et al., 4 ° C to avoid dehydration. 2007]. Therefore, some products contain other surfac- tants, such as cocoamidopropyl betaine (CAPB) [Ran- Solution Preparation The following surfactant agents were tested: SLS (Synth, Di- tanen et al., 2002]. adema, Sao Paulo, Brazil), CAPB (Emfal, Belo Horizonte, Minas The influence of surfactants and their interaction with Gerais, Brazil), and P20 (Kotilen V1, Kolb, Moerdijk, the Nether- fluoride during erosive events have not been well estab- lands). The concentrations tested were 1 and 1.5%. The solutions lished so far. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate were prepared by diluting the surfactants in water, under agita- the effect of surfactants in different concentrations over tion, until achieving the concentration in volume for each group. Table 1 shows the chemical properties of all the surfactants. the enamel surface energy and their influence on the ac- For the groups containing fluoride, 275 ppm of NaF was added quired pellicle formation and fluoride protection under to the solution in order to simulate a dentifrice with 1,100 ppm. erosive situations. The null hypotheses tested were that: This fluoride concentration was used to simulate the 1: 3 dilution (a) the surfactants do not change the enamel wettability that occurs with the saliva during brushing [Duke and Forward, and (b) do not interfere with fluoride protection during 1982]. erosive challenges on enamel. Surface Wettability – Contact Angle Characterization The polished crown specimens were divided into 7 groups (n = 5) according to the surfactants (SLS, CPB, and P20) and the con- Materials and Methods centrations (1 and 1.5%) used. For the contact angle analysis, the solutions were tested without fluoride. The control group was ul- Experimental Design trapure water. The specimens were immersed in each group’s re- The 3 experimental factors tested were: (1) the surfactant type: spective solution for 2 min under agitation (60 rpm – Kline shaker, SLS, CAPB and polysorbate 20 (P20 – also known as Tween 20); TS2000A, Biomixer), then placed on absorbent paper to dry before (2) the surfactant concentration: 1.0 and 1.5% v/v; (3) the presence the measurements. This was performed due to the presence of wa- 2 Caries Res 2019;53:1–9 Zanatta/Ávila/Miyamoto/Torres/Borges DOI: 10.1159/000488207 Downloaded by: UNESP Universidade Estdual Paulista 186.217.236.55 - 5/29/2019 7:02:07 PM Table 1. Chemical properties of the surfactants SLS CAPB P20 anionic amphoteric nonionic Chemical formula C12H25SO4Na C19H38N2O3 C58H114O26 Molar mass, g/mol 288.4 342.5 1,227.5 Density, g/cm3 1.05 1.05 1.10 Solution pH 10.5 5.1 5.3 CMC, mM 8.2 0.28 0.08 CMC according to tested concentration, mM 1%: 36.4 1%: 30.6 1%: 8.9 1.5%: 546 1.5%: 45.9 1.5%: 13.4 CMC, critical micellar concentration. ter that might possibly increase the wettability of solid surfaces and proline-rich proteins [Caetano Junior et al., 2015]. The 980 [Zhang et al., 2015]. cm–1 band corresponds to the phosphate found in hydroxyapatite The contact angle of the enamel surfaces was measured using and was used as the internal control.