Comparative assessment of enamel remineralisation on the surface microhardness of demineralized enamel - an in vitro study

PeerJ

article

Bhavika Bhavsar¹  Mary Vijo¹  Pranjely Sharma¹  Tulika Patnaik¹  Mohammad Khursheed Alam²  Santosh Patil⁵ 

[1] Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rkdf Dental College and Research Centre;Orthodontics, Preventive Dentistry Department, College of Dentistry, Jouf University;Center for Transdisciplinary Research ,(CFTR), Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University;Department of Public Health, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Daffodil lnternational University;Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, New Horizon Dental College and Research Institute

关键词: Carious lesions;    Microhardness;    Fluoride;    Remineralisation;    Bioglass;    Hydroxyapatite;    Calcium phosphate;    Demineralisation;   

DOI  :  10.7717/peerj.14098

学科分类：社会科学、人文和艺术（综合）

来源: Inra

【 摘 要 】

Objective The main objective of the study was to compare two different remineralising materials containing casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate, bioactive glass on enamel surface microhardness. Materials and Methods Thirty premolars were used for specimen preparation. Group 1 (the control group) consisted of intact enamel samples, group 2: CPP-ACPF (Tooth Mousse Plus), group 3: bioenamel remineralising gel (Prevest DenPro). All specimens were subjected to demineralisation except the control group, followed by which remineralising agents were applied. A universal hardness tester was used to assess the surface microhardness of all samples. Results were analysed using one-way ANOVA test and comparison was analysed using Scheffe’s post hoc least significant difference (LSD) test. Results Both remineralising agents used in groups 2 and 3 have shown significant outcome in terms of improving the surface microhardness in comparison with the control group. Group 2 increased the enamel hardness by 8.34 where P = 0.023 whereas group 3 increased the hardness by 5.87, where P = 0.01. Conclusion Group 2 has a superior hardness value than group 3; however, no statistically significant results were obtained between both the groups.

【 授权许可】

CC BY