Abstract
Abstract Foam has been used worldwide as a vehicle for the professional application of fluoride and hypothetically should have the same anticaries potential as conventional fluoride gel (F-gel) in terms of the formation of reaction products with enamel. Thus, the ability of Flúor Care® foam (FGM, Joinville, SC, Brazil, 12,300 ppm F, acidulated) to react with enamel was evaluated in comparison with Flúor gel® (DFL, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, 12,300 ppm F, acidulated). Slabs (n=10/group) of sound enamel and with caries lesion were used, in which the concentrations of total fluoride (TF), and loosely (CaF2-like) and firmly (FAp) bound types were determined. The importance of agitation during application was previously tested. The determinations were made with fluoride ion-specific electrode and the results were expressed in μg F/cm² of the treated enamel area. ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to analyze the difference among treatments, independently for sound and carious enamel. The agitation of the products during application significantly increased the reactivity of the foam (p<0.05), but not that of the gel (p>0.05). The foam did not differ from F-gel (p>0.05) concerning the formation of TF and CaF2-like in sound or carious enamel. Regarding FAp, the foam did not differ from F-gel (p>0.05) in the carious enamel, but the concentration in the sound was lower (p<0.05). The results show that this commercial fluoride foam tested needs to be agitated during application to improve its reactivity with enamel, which raises a question about other brands.