Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 3, 2025

Mimicking and Measuring Occlusal Erosive Tooth Wear with the "Rub&Roll" and Non-contact Profilometry
Published on: February 2, 2018
Pellicle Modification with Casein and Mucin Does Not Affect Surface Loss from Erosion and Abrasion
Tommy Baumann1, Christoph Schmidt2, Thiago Saads Carvalho2
1Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, tommy.baumann@zmk.unibe.ch.
Aim:
A combination of the proteins casein and mucin is known to modify the salivary pellicle and improve its protection of the underlying enamel from erosion. It is so far not known if this protection is confined solely to erosion, or if it also extends to abrasion, and this in vitro study aimed at investigating this question.
Methods:
A total of 72 human enamel specimens were prepared and randomly assigned to four groups: pellicle (P), casein/mucin (CM), pellicle + casein/mucin (PCM), and control (Ctrl). Each specimen underwent five cycles, each cycle consisting of a pellicle/treatment part, an erosion part (3 min in 1% citric acid, pH 3.6, 25°C, 70 rpm), and an abrasion part (50 toothbrush strokes within 25 s in toothpaste slurry with a 200-g load). The pellicle/treatment part consisted of 2 h of incubation in whole human saliva for group P, 2 h of incubation (25°C, 70 rpm) in a protein mixture of 1% casein and 0.27% mucin for group CM, and 2 h of incubation in saliva followed by 2 h of incubation in the protein mixture for group PCM. The fourth group (Ctrl) served as the control and was kept in a humid chamber without saliva or protein treatment. The enamel surfaces were scanned with an optical profilometer initially and after the final cycle, and surface loss was analyzed. Furthermore, the surface microhardness (SMH) was measured initially, after each pellicle/treatment part and each erosion cycle, and after the final abrasion cycle. The results were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests with Bonferroni corrections.
Results:
The different treatments did not show differences in surface loss and therefore did not protect enamel from surface loss by abrasion. Nonetheless, we observed differences in the SMH values, namely the Ctrl group being significantly softer than the experimental groups.
Conclusion:
The observed differences in SMH suggest that a different abrasion protocol could lead to differences in surface loss, and further investigation of whether and under which conditions pellicle modification leads to increased resistance to abrasion remains worthwhile.
More Related Videos
06:36Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
06:022-Methacryloyloxyethyl Phosphorylcholine Polymer Treatment of Complete Dentures to Inhibit Denture Plaque Deposition
Published on: December 26, 2016
Related Concept Videos
Drugs for Peptic Ulcer Disease: Sucralfate as Mucosal Protective Agents
In this scenario, mucosal protective agents like sucralfate play an essential role. Sucralfate, a complex of sulfated sucrose and aluminum hydroxide, demonstrates its usefulness in acidic conditions,...
Surface Membrane Barriers
The outer layer of the skin, the epidermis, is a robust barrier comprising layers of closely packed keratinized cells. This dense arrangement prevents microbes from penetrating the body. The periodic shedding of epidermal cells...
Pathophysiology of Peptic Ulcer Disease: Mucosal Defense Factors
Archaeal Cell Wall
Peptic Ulcer Disease II: Pathophysiology
Damaging agents such as Helicobacter pylori, gastric acid, pepsin, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can weaken the mucosal defense, allowing hydrogen ions to infiltrate back and harm epithelial cells.
Surface Appendages of Archaea