Comparative evaluation of remineralizing potential of Fluoride using three different remineralizing protocols: An in vitro study

BACKGROUND: Remineralization of noncavitated enamel is dependent on the bioavailability of calcium, phosphate, and hydroxyl ions in saliva. However, it is enhanced by the presence of fluoride. This study compared the remineralizing potential of three different topical fluoride agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen extracted premolars were selected for the study. The crown of each tooth was longitudinally sectioned buccolingually and mesiodistally using a diamond disc so as to obtain sixty specimens which were embedded in acrylic molds. The specimens were immersed in demineralizing solution for 3 days. The specimens were randomly assigned to four groups, namely Duraphat fluoride varnish, ReminPro paste, ClinPro Tooth Crème, and control group (no surface treatment). A pH cycling includes alternate demineralization and remineralization. Surface mean hardness (SMH) was recorded with 50 g load for 5 s using VHN machine at baseline, after demineralization and pH cycling. The four groups were compared for difference in SMH using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey–Kramer test. All testing was done with alpha 0.05. RESULTS: SMH recovery results for ClinPro, Duraphat, and ReminPro were 54.88%, 43.42%, and 26.86%, respectively. The difference in the percentage SMH recovery for ClinPro paste was better than Duraphat and ReminPro, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ClinPro tooth Crème showed the best remineralization potential among the three materials tested followed by Duraphat and ReminPro.