The patients were randomly allocated into the two groups, using a random number sequence. Each patient contributed two teeth randomly selected among those affected by DH to the study. The type of hard tissue erosion, cuneiform defect, pathological abrasion, or gingival recession, associated with DH, was determined, recorded, and stored for every included tooth.
The selected teeth of each patient were treated with either Tiefenfluorid® solution or EnamelastTM varnish (Ultradent Inc., Cologne, Germany), depending on their allocation to the treatment or control group, respectively, following the manufacturer’s instructions.
The treatment group, which included 96 patients, was treated in three sessions with Tiefenfluorid®, at time intervals of 7 days. The dental surfaces of this group were first cleaned with pumice and then isolated with a rubber dam. Tiefenfluorid®, which consisted of two distinct solutions, was applied as follows: the first solution was applied with a cotton pellet and left in situ for 60 s. Then, the second solution was applied (no rinsing in-between) with another cotton pellet and left in situ for 5 min (time necessary for its evaporation). The surface was rinsed with water only at the end of the procedure. At this point, the patient could eat immediately after the session, since there was no hardening time to respect. The mechanism of Tiefenfluorid® activity on the surface of loose enamel is presented inFigure 1 .
The control group, which included 80 patients, was treated over seven sessions with a fluoride varnish, named EnamelastTM (Ultradent Inc., Cologne, Germany). In this group, the dental surfaces were also first cleaned with pumice and then isolated with a rubber dam. Subsequently, the fluoride varnish was applied using a bristle brush; the treatment was repeated every 7 days.Table 1 provides details on the composition of the two fluoride-based agents used in the present study.
The selected teeth of each patient were treated with either Tiefenfluorid® solution or EnamelastTM varnish (Ultradent Inc., Cologne, Germany), depending on their allocation to the treatment or control group, respectively, following the manufacturer’s instructions.
The treatment group, which included 96 patients, was treated in three sessions with Tiefenfluorid®, at time intervals of 7 days. The dental surfaces of this group were first cleaned with pumice and then isolated with a rubber dam. Tiefenfluorid®, which consisted of two distinct solutions, was applied as follows: the first solution was applied with a cotton pellet and left in situ for 60 s. Then, the second solution was applied (no rinsing in-between) with another cotton pellet and left in situ for 5 min (time necessary for its evaporation). The surface was rinsed with water only at the end of the procedure. At this point, the patient could eat immediately after the session, since there was no hardening time to respect. The mechanism of Tiefenfluorid® activity on the surface of loose enamel is presented in
The control group, which included 80 patients, was treated over seven sessions with a fluoride varnish, named EnamelastTM (Ultradent Inc., Cologne, Germany). In this group, the dental surfaces were also first cleaned with pumice and then isolated with a rubber dam. Subsequently, the fluoride varnish was applied using a bristle brush; the treatment was repeated every 7 days.
Free full text: Click here
