In vitro evaluation of modified surface microhardness measurement, focus variation 3D microscopy and contact stylus profilometry to assess enamel surface loss after erosive-abrasive challenges.

Gyurkovics, Milán; Baumann, Tommy; Saads Carvalho, Thiago; Assunção, Cristiane Meira; Lussi, Adrian (2017). In vitro evaluation of modified surface microhardness measurement, focus variation 3D microscopy and contact stylus profilometry to assess enamel surface loss after erosive-abrasive challenges. PLoS ONE, 12(4), e0175027. Public Library of Science 10.1371/journal.pone.0175027

Preview

Text journal.pone.0175027.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (1MB) | Preview

The aim of the study was to compare surface loss values after erosion-abrasion cycles obtained with modified surface microhardness measurement (mSMH), focus variation 3D microscopy (FVM) and contact stylus profilometry (CSP). We cut human molars into buccal and lingual halves, embedded them in resin and ground 200 μm of enamel away. The resulting surfaces were polished. To maintain a reference area, we applied Block-Out resin to partly cover the enamel surface. The samples were incubated in artificial saliva (37°C; 1 h), then rinsed in deionized water (10 s) and dried with oil-free air (5 s). We immersed the specimens individually in 30 mL citric acid (1%, pH 3.6) for 2 min (25°C, 70 rpm dynamic conditions) before brushing them (50 strokes, 200 g) in an automatic brushing machine with toothpaste-slurry. We calculated the surface loss as per mSMH, by re-measuring the length of the same six indentations made before the abrasive challenge. The experiment consisted of five experimental groups that received between 2 and 10 erosion-abrasion cycles. Each group contained 15 specimens and samples in groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 underwent a total of 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 cycles, respectively. The resin was removed from the reference area in one piece under 10× magnification and the FVM and CSP were performed. Agreement between the methods was calculated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and depicted in Bland-Altman plots. All methods presented a linear pattern of surface loss measurements throughout the experiment, leading overall to a strong, statistically significant correlation between the methods (ICC = 0.85; p<0.001). So, despite the different surface loss values, all methods presented consistent results for surface loss measurement.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

166 since deposited on 15 Nov 2017
11 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item