Browsing by Author "Department of Cariology, Operative Dentistry, and Dental Public Health, IU School of Dentistry"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Exploratory randomized clinical trial of an experimental gel-to-foam fluoride dentifrice formulation using an in situ caries model
    (2015) Barlow, Ashley; Butler, Andrew; Mason, Stephen; Zero, Domenick; Department of Cariology, Operative Dentistry, and Dental Public Health, IU School of Dentistry
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the in situ caries performance and safety of two experimental fluoride dentifrice formulations (1450 ppm fluoride) with and without 2% isopentane as an excipient, in comparison to a positive control, currently marketed dentifrice (1450 ppm fluoride) and a negative control dentifrice (0 ppm fluoride). METHODS: This was a single-center, examiner-blind, randomized, controlled, four-treatment cross-over study. During each treatment period, the subject wore a modified mandibular partial denture fitted with two gauze-covered, partially demineralized human enamel specimens, and brushed at home for one timed minute, twice daily, for two weeks. At the end of each treatment period, the enamel specimens were removed from the dentures for analysis. During the week between treatment periods, subjects returned to their usual dental hygiene practices for four to five days, received a dental prophylaxis, and used a study-designated non-fluoride dentifrice for two to three days before starting the next treatment. Treatment effect on enamel specimen remineralization was assessed by surface microhardness (SMH). Enamel fluoride uptake was assessed using microdrill enamel biopsy. RESULTS: All fluoride-containing dentifrices demonstrated significant, superior SMH recovery and levels of fluoride uptake compared to the negative control dentifrice. No significant differences were observed for either efficacy variable between the experimental dentifrice formulations and the positive control dentifrice. No significant difference was observed between the 2% isopentane dentifrice and the 0% isopentane dentifrice for SMH recovery. CONCLUSION: The addition of 2% isopentane did not positively or negatively affect fluoride efficacy in this model.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    In vitro Detection of Occlusal Caries on Permanent Teeth by a Visual, Light-Induced Fluorescence and Photothermal Radiometry and Modulated Luminescence Methods
    (Karger, 2015-10) Jallad, Mahmoud; Zero, Domenick; Eckert, George; Ferreira Zandona, Ag; Department of Cariology, Operative Dentistry, and Dental Public Health, IU School of Dentistry
    Background: The paradigm shift towards the nonsurgical management of dental caries relies on the early detection of the disease. Detection of caries at an early stage is of unequivocal importance for early preventive intervention. Objective: The aim of this in vitro study is to evaluate the performance of a visual examination using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) criteria, two quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) systems - Inspektor™ Pro and QLF-D Biluminator™ 2 (Inspektor Research Systems B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands) - and a photothermal radiometry and modulated luminescence, The Canary System® (Quantum Dental Technologies, Toronto, Ont., Canada) on the detection of primary occlusal caries on permanent teeth. Methods: A total of 60 teeth with occlusal surface sites ranging from sound to noncavitated lesions (ICDAS 0-4) were assessed with each detection method twice in a random order. Histological validation was used to compare methods for sensitivity, specificity, percent correct, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), at standard and optimum sound thresholds. Interexaminer agreement and intraexaminer repeatability were measured using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: Interexaminer agreement ranged between 0.48 (The Canary System®) and 0.96 (QLF-D Biluminator™ 2). Intraexaminer repeatability ranges were 0.33-0.63 (The Canary System®) and 0.96-0.99 (QLF-D Biluminator™ 2). The sensitivity range was 0.75-0.96 while that of specificity was 0.43-0.89. The AUC were 0.79 (The Canary System®), 0.87 (ICDAS), 0.90 (Inspektor™ Pro), and 0.94 (QLF-D Biluminator™ 2). Conclusion: ICDAS had the best combination of sensitivity and specificity followed by QLF-D Biluminator™ 2 at optimum threshold.