Protection of sound enamel and artificial enamel lesions against demineralisation: Caries infiltrant versus adhesive

ObjectiveTo compare the protective potential of a conventional adhesive, a caries infiltrant and a combination of both against acidic challenge in vitro.MethodsOne-hundred-and-fifty discs from bovine lower central incisors were fabricated. Seventy-five samples remained untreated, whereas the other half was subjected to a demineralisation process (14 days, acidic buffer, and pH 5) to create artificial enamel lesions. Specimens were then radioactively irradiated, and each 15 sound and demineralised specimens were treated with a caries infiltrant (Icon, DMG), an unfilled adhesive (Heliobond, IvoclarVivadent) or a combination of infiltrant and adhesive. Specimens treated with the adhesive followed by a flowable composite (TetricEvoFlow, IvoclarVivadent) served as positive control, while untreated specimens served as negative control. All samples were then subjected to lactic acid for 3 weeks at pH 4. Loss of apatite was determined using the radiochemical method of liquid scintillation. Data were statistically analysed by Kruskal–Wallis-test, one-way ANOVA and Scheffe's post hoc tests (p ≤ .05).ResultsIn both sound enamel and artificial caries lesions, untreated specimens showed the highest rate of apatite loss, whereas enamel treated with the adhesive and the flowable composite showed almost complete protection surface against dissolution. The caries infiltrant, the adhesive and the combination of both were able to decrease enamel dissolution, but the adhesive and the combination of adhesive and infiltrant were more effective than the infiltrant alone.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, the application of an adhesive (alone or in combination with the caries infiltrant) is more effective to protect enamel dissolution than the infiltrant alone.