Efficacy of different remineralization agents on microhardness and chemical composition of enamel white spot lesion

TL;DR

This study compares how well different treatments can restore the hardness and mineral content of tooth enamel affected by white spot lesions.

Contribution

The study introduces a novel combination of bioactive glass and CPP-ACPF for remineralization of enamel white spot lesions.

Findings

The BAG+CPP-ACPF group showed the best recovery in surface microhardness and mineral content.

CPP-ACPF alone was less effective compared to the combination treatment.

Artificial saliva had the least effect on restoring enamel properties.

Abstract

White spot lesions (WSLs) are frequently linked with low microhardness and mineral content changes. several strategies have been employed to deal with these problems. This investigation aimed to analyze the microhardness and mineral content changes after remineralization with bioactive glass (BAG) and casein phospho-peptide-amorphous calcium phosphate with fluoride (CPP-ACPF).

Twenty sound maxillary first premolars extracted were used to obtain a total of one hundred enamel samples. forty enamel slabs were split into four experimental groups (n = 10 each): Group I, BAG; Group II, BAG+CPP-ACPF; Group III, CPP-ACPF varnish; and Group IV, artificial saliva (negative control). To create artificial WSLs, all samples were preserved in a prepared demineralizing agent for 72 h before treatment with remineralizing agents. Vickers microhardness test was performed. Additionally, 60 enamel samples were selected for analysis using energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDX) and assigned to six experimental groups; the first four groups were similar to that used in the microhardness test along with Group V: WSLs, and Group VI: baseline. The statistical analyses employed in this study included Tukey’s HSD (p<0.05), one-way ANOVA, and Shapiro-Wilk.

Regarding surface microhardness, the BAG+CPP-ACPF group showed the most favorable recovery, which was better than the outcomes of the BAG and CPP-ACPF groups. A statistically significant change (p <0.05) was not observed between them. Similarly, for mineral content change, the BAG+CPP-ACPF group demonstrated the greatest result, The BAG group came next, and the CPP-ACPF group came last.

The BAG+CPP-ACPF group might be regarded as the best course of treatment for enhancing both the surface microhardness and mineral content (Ca, P), while the control group (Artificial saliva) showed the least satisfactory results in comparison. After demineralization, mineral content and microhardness decreased in all samples. Therefore, BAG+CPP-ACPF significantly improved the surface microhardness and mineral content.

Figures