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

Autor:	Bhavsar B; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rkdf Dental College and Research Centre, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India., Vijo M; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rkdf Dental College and Research Centre, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India., Sharma P; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rkdf Dental College and Research Centre, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India., Patnaik T; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rkdf Dental College and Research Centre, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India., Alam MK; Orthodontics, Preventive Dentistry Department, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia.; Center for Transdisciplinary Research (CFTR), Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, India.; Department of Public Health, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Daffodil lnternational University, Dhaka, Bangladesh., Patil S; Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, New Horizon Dental College and Research Institute, Sakri, Bilaspur, India.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	PeerJ [PeerJ] 2022 Oct 07; Vol. 10, pp. e14098. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Oct 07 (Print Publication: 2022).
DOI:	10.7717/peerj.14098
Abstrakt:	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. Competing Interests: Mohammad Khursheed Alam is an Academic Editor for PeerJ. (© 2022 Bhavsar et al.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu