dc.contributorUniversidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar)
dc.contributorUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)
dc.contributorUniv Bern
dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-25T15:20:11Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-19T23:04:38Z
dc.date.available2021-06-25T15:20:11Z
dc.date.available2022-12-19T23:04:38Z
dc.date.created2021-06-25T15:20:11Z
dc.date.issued2021-04-01
dc.identifierJournal Of Dentistry. Oxford: Elsevier Sci Ltd, v. 107, 7 p., 2021.
dc.identifier0300-5712
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/210426
dc.identifier10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103612
dc.identifierWOS:000636793800011
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/5391026
dc.description.abstractObjective: This study investigated the mechanism of action of different proteins/peptides (separately or in combination), focusing on how they act directly on the native enamel surface and on modifying the salivary pellicle. Methods: A total of 170 native human enamel specimens were prepared and submitted to different treatments (2 h; 37 degrees C): with deionized water, CaneCPI-5, Hemoglobin, Statherin, or a combination of all three proteins/peptides. The groups were subdivided into treatment acting on the enamel surface (NoP - absence of salivary pellicle), and treatment modifying the salivary pellicle (P). Treatment was made (2 h; 37 degrees C) in all specimens, and later, for P, the specimens were incubated in human saliva (2 h; 37 degrees C). In both cases, the specimens were immersed in 1% citric acid (pH 3.6; 2 min; 25 degrees C). Calcium released from enamel (CaR) and its relative surface reflection intensity (%SRI) was measured after 5 cycles. Between-group differences were verified with two-way ANOVA, with presence of pellicle and treatment as factors (alpha = 0.05). Results: The presence of pellicle provided better protection regarding %SRI (p < 0.01), but not regarding CaR (p = 0.201). In relation to treatment, when compared to the control group, all proteins/peptides provided significantly better protection (p < 0.01 for %SRI and Car). The combination of all three proteins/peptides demonstrated the best protective effect (p < 0.01 for %SRI). Conclusion: Depending on the protein or peptide, its erosion-inhibiting effect derives from their interaction with the enamel surface or from modifying the pellicle, so a combination of proteins and peptides provides the best protection. Clinical significance: The present study opens a new direction for a possible treatment with a combination of proteins for native human enamel, which can act directly on the enamel surface as well on the modification of the salivary pellicle, for the prevention of dental erosion.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.
dc.relationJournal Of Dentistry
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectAcquired pellicle
dc.subjectDental erosion
dc.subjectEnamel
dc.subjectProtein
dc.subjectPellicle modification
dc.subjectsaliva
dc.titleAcquired pellicle engineering with proteins/peptides: Mechanism of action on native human enamel surface
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución