ABSTRACT
Context: Artificial teeth are widely used in oral rehabilitation. Despite the benefits, they are more susceptible to colour changes, causing aesthetic problems. Aims: To evaluate the effect of conventional cigarette and straw smoke on the colour of artificial teeth and the effectiveness of hygiene protocols in removing pigmentation. Material and Methods: Acrylic resin incisors were divided into two groups (n = 50): Exposed to conventional cigarette and straw smoke. Regarding the effectiveness of hygiene protocols, the teeth were divided into ten subgroups with predetermined immersion times. The colour was measured with a colorimeter. The CIE values L* a* b* were recorded before and after exposure to smoke and after hygiene protocols. Statistical analysis used T?test of independent samples and two?way ANOVA with Bonferroni post?test (? = 0.05). Results: Conventional (16.16 ± 1.65) and straw (16.29 ± 1.95) cigarettes provided clinically unacceptable ?E values, with no significant difference between them (P = 0.719). Conventional cigarettes promoted less luminosity (?L = –12.68 ± 1.28) (P < 0.001) and straw greater tendency to yellow (?b = 11.00 ± 1.46) (P < 0.001). The hygiene protocols influenced the ?E, ?L, and ?b of the samples, depending on the type of smoke (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The conventional and rolled cigarette smoke promote an unacceptable colour change in artificial teeth. Hygiene protocols with the use of brushing, in isolation or in association with chemical solutions are more effective in removing pigmentation caused by both types of cigarettes compared to only the chemical solution
ABSTRACT
Context: A promising option for the prevention of dental caries is the use of laser irradiation. Aims: Evaluate the effects of Er:YAG, Nd:YAG, and CO2 laser irradiation, associated or not to 2% sodium fluoride (2% NaF), on root caries prevention. Material and Methods: One hundred and four human root dentin samples were divided in eight groups (n = 13). A 9?mm2?area on each dentin sample was delimited and treated as follows: G1: no treatment (control); G2: 2% NaF; G3: Er:YAG; G4: 2% NaF + Er:YAG; G5: Nd:YAG; G6: 2% NaF + Nd:YAG; G7: CO2; G8: 2% NaF + CO2. When used, the 2% NaF was applied before irradiation for 4 min. The samples were subjected to a 2?week cariogenic challenge, consisted of daily immersion in de?remineralizing solutions for 6 h and 18 h, respectively. Knoop hardness (KHN) were evaluated (10 g and 20 s) at different depths from the dentin surface. The samples (n = 3) were prepared for scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Microhardness data were analysed by one?way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Fisher’s test (? = 5%). Results: The Er:YAG laser group (KHN = 41.30) promoted an increase in acid resistance of the dentin (P < 0.05) when compared to all groups. There was no synergism between laser irradiation and 2% NaF application. Morphological changes were observed after irradiation with all lasers; carbonization and cracks were also observed, except when Er:YAG were used. Conclusions: Er:YAG laser irradiation can safely increase the acid resistance of the dentin surface of the root, since it promoted a significant increase in surface hardness. The application of 2% NaF did not result in a synergistic effect