Comparison of methods for quantifying dental wear caused by erosion and abrasion

Various methods have been applied to evaluate the effect of erosion and abrasion. So, the aim of this study was to check the applicability of stylus profilometry (SP), surface hardness (SH) and focus‐variation 3D microscopy (FVM) to the analysis of human enamel and dentin subjected to erosion/abrasion. The samples were randomly allocated into four groups (n = 10): G1‐enamel/erosion, G2‐enamel/erosion plus abrasion, G3‐dentin/erosion, and G4‐dentin/erosion plus abrasion. The specimens were selected by their surface hardness, and they were subjected to cycles of demineralization (Coca‐Cola®‐60 s) and remineralization (artificial saliva‐60 min). For groups G2 and G4, the remineralization procedures were followed by toothbrushing (150 strokes). The above cycle was repeated 3×/day during 5 days. The samples were assessed using SH, SP, and FVM. For each substrate, the groups were compared using an unpaired t‐test, and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated (α = 5%). For enamel, both profilometry technique showed greater surface loss when the erosion and abrasion processes were combined (P <0.05). The correlation analysis did not reveal any relationships among SH, SP, and FVM to G2 and G4. There were significant correlation coefficients (–0.70 and –0.67) for the comparisons between the FVM and SH methods in enamel and dentin, respectively, in G1 and G3. Choosing the ideal technique for the analysis of erosion depends on the type of dental substrate. SP was not sufficiently sensitive to measure the effects on dentin of erosion or erosion/abrasion. However, SP, FVM and SH were adequate for the detection of tissue loss and demineralization in enamel. Microsc. Res. Tech., 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.