(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Figure 5: Transmission electron microscopic images of the in situ formed 30 min pellicle without pretreatment (a) and with pretreatment with Biorepair mouth rinsing solution (b, d, e) and GC Tooth Mousse (c, f, g) at 98.000-fold magnification. For representative images of the influence of elmex Kariesschutz on in situ pellicle formation previously published by our workgroup see Weber et al. [33]. The enamel was removed during the preparation of the samples; the former enamel site is marked with an asterisk. After 30 min of physiological pellicle formation a fine electron-dense basal layer (basal pellicle) as well as a thin fine granular second layer can be detected at the enamel surface (a). Clearly neither rinses with Biorepair mouth rinsing solution ((b, d) contrasted, (e) uncontrasted) nor the application of GC Tooth Mousse ((d, f) both contrasted, (g) uncontrasted) after 1 min of pellicle formation seemed to affect or penetrate the characteristic appearance of the basal layer. However, in 10% of the analyzed pellicle, ultrastructural changes that are possibly due to an accumulation of electron-dense mineral components could be visualized in the outer parts of the in situ formed pellicle 28 min after pretreatment with the prophylactic products (d–g). While the inorganic electron-dense aggregates after rinsing with Biorepair mouth rinsing solution appear randomly distributed throughout the pellicle layer (d, e), electron-dense inorganic particles are more homogenously arranged and densely attached to the outer parts of the in situ formed pellicle after application of the Tooth Mousse paste (f, g).