Fluoride Uptake to Demineralised Enamel: A Comparison of Sampling Techniques

Abstract

Fluoride uptake is a recognised way of assessing the potential anticaries efficacy of fluoride (F) treatments. The aim of the present study was to compare an abrasion method of sampling treated enamel, based on that of Weatherell et al. [Caries Res 1985;19:97–102], with the acid–etch method of Raven et al. [Caries Res 1991;25:130–137]. Two adjacent demineralised areas were created on the polished surfaces of bovine incisors using an acid gel system. One artificial lesion from each tooth was subsequently treated for 6 h at 37°C with one of two fluoridated dentifrice slurries (1 part: 3 parts water), whereas the other was treated similarly with a slurry of non–F control dentifrice. One set of treated lesions was then separated, the base of each enamel block polished until planoparallel with the demineralised surface and the lesions isolated by cutting away the adjacent sound enamel. Each block was mounted on the probe of a digital micrometer and the demineralised surface abraded with silicon carbide lapping film until sound material was reached. Abraded material was dissolved in perchloric acid and the buffered solution analysed for fluoride by ion–selective electrode. Each lesion of a second set of treated, demineralised enamel blocks was etched by 20μl acid and the resulting solutions analysed for F. Mean F uptakes [μg cm^–2 (SD)] were: abrasion (n = 7/treatment); F dentifrice A = 1.39 (0.89) and B = 0.86 (0.45) relative to non–F controls = 0.11 (0.12), 0.14 (0.06), respectively; and acid–etch (n = 14/treatment); A = 1.27 (0.49), B = 0.69 (0.23), controls = 0.12 (0.06), 0.12 (0.06), respectively. Significant differences (p<0.05) for both data sets were: A>B> control. The results show good agreement between the sampling methods and demonstrate the ability of the abrasion technique to distinguish between F treatments.