Ethics code: IR.SBMU.DRC.REC.1402.087
چکیده: (14 مشاهده)
Background and Aim: Different fluoride varnish formulations may exhibit varying effects on the recovery of demineralized enamel. This study aimed to compare the effects of two fluoride varnishes on the microhardness of demineralized enamel.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, 40 sound enamel specimens were prepared and assigned to four groups (n=10): sound enamel, demineralized enamel, remineralized enamel using AV varnish (Avijeh Teb Parsian), and remineralized enamel using Enamelast (Ultradent). In each group, the baseline enamel microhardness was first measured at the surface and then from the most superficial point towards the dentinoenamel junction at 10 µm intervals. To measure the depth of demineralization and remineralization, the specimens were mesiodistally sectioned by a thin sectioner. A standard acid with a pH of 4.4 was used for enamel demineralization. Microhardness was measured by the Vickers microhardness tester. Data were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test (alpha=0.05).
Results: Application of fluoride varnish effectively enhanced enamel remineralization, and the efficacy of the two varnishes was significantly different for enamel remineralization both at the enamel surface and also at different depths (P<0.05).
Conclusion: The results showed that both Enamelast and AV fluoride varnishes increased demineralized enamel microhardness. Enamelast was more effective than AV for enhancement of superficial enamel microhardness while AV was more effective in enhancement of deep enamel microhardness. None of the varnishes could increase demineralized enamel microhardness to the level of sound enamel.