Cargando…

A Comparison between Two Different Remineralizing Agents against White Spot Lesions: An In Vitro Study

Enamel demineralization and white-spot lesions (WSLs) around the orthodontic brackets are common clinical complications after orthodontic fixed appliance therapy. WSLs form mainly due to plaque deposition around the brackets during the orthodontic treatment period. This study was designed to compare...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alsubhi, Hassan, Gabbani, Mohammad, Alsolami, Abdulsalam, Alotaibi, Mohammed, Abuljadayel, Jameel, Taju, Waleed, Bukhari, Omair
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7837783/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33531901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6644069
_version_ 1783643021692108800
author Alsubhi, Hassan
Gabbani, Mohammad
Alsolami, Abdulsalam
Alotaibi, Mohammed
Abuljadayel, Jameel
Taju, Waleed
Bukhari, Omair
author_facet Alsubhi, Hassan
Gabbani, Mohammad
Alsolami, Abdulsalam
Alotaibi, Mohammed
Abuljadayel, Jameel
Taju, Waleed
Bukhari, Omair
author_sort Alsubhi, Hassan
collection PubMed
description Enamel demineralization and white-spot lesions (WSLs) around the orthodontic brackets are common clinical complications after orthodontic fixed appliance therapy. WSLs form mainly due to plaque deposition around the brackets during the orthodontic treatment period. This study was designed to compare and evaluate the efficacy of two different remineralization agents on WSLs, which are “Clinpro 5000 and Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief”. 27 caries-free human premolar teeth were collected after extraction for orthodontic purposes. The crowns were set in acrylic resin, and the entire surfaces were coated with nail varnish apart from an area of 4 × 4 mm on the buccal surface. The surface microhardness (SMH) was measured using the Vickers microhardness testing machine at baseline, after demineralization, and after treatment. Then, the different SMH values were statistically analyzed using mixed-effects linear regression. All samples were immersed in demineralizing solution for ten days to create WSLs, and then the teeth were allocated randomly into one of the three groups: Group 1 (control group-immersed in artificial saliva), Group 2 (treated with Colgate sensitive Pro-Relief toothpaste), and Group 3 (Clinpro 5000 toothpaste). Cycles of treatment were done for 5 minutes every 12 hours for 14 days. The samples were stored in freshly prepared artificial saliva between cycles. The mixed-effects model was used to quantify the effect of different remineralization agents. All statistics were computed using STATA software (version14.1; Stata, College Station, TX). All statistical tests were two-tailed and interpreted at the 0.05 significance level. Both agents improved the surface hardness. Clinpro 5000 improved the surface hardness by 12.7 (P value 0.012), and Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief improved surface hardness by 18.2 (P value <0.0001), However when both treatments are compared with each other, there was no statistical significance among them. When compared to the control group, both treatments “Clinpro™ 5000 and Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief” have significantly improved enamel's SMH.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7837783
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78377832021-02-01 A Comparison between Two Different Remineralizing Agents against White Spot Lesions: An In Vitro Study Alsubhi, Hassan Gabbani, Mohammad Alsolami, Abdulsalam Alotaibi, Mohammed Abuljadayel, Jameel Taju, Waleed Bukhari, Omair Int J Dent Research Article Enamel demineralization and white-spot lesions (WSLs) around the orthodontic brackets are common clinical complications after orthodontic fixed appliance therapy. WSLs form mainly due to plaque deposition around the brackets during the orthodontic treatment period. This study was designed to compare and evaluate the efficacy of two different remineralization agents on WSLs, which are “Clinpro 5000 and Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief”. 27 caries-free human premolar teeth were collected after extraction for orthodontic purposes. The crowns were set in acrylic resin, and the entire surfaces were coated with nail varnish apart from an area of 4 × 4 mm on the buccal surface. The surface microhardness (SMH) was measured using the Vickers microhardness testing machine at baseline, after demineralization, and after treatment. Then, the different SMH values were statistically analyzed using mixed-effects linear regression. All samples were immersed in demineralizing solution for ten days to create WSLs, and then the teeth were allocated randomly into one of the three groups: Group 1 (control group-immersed in artificial saliva), Group 2 (treated with Colgate sensitive Pro-Relief toothpaste), and Group 3 (Clinpro 5000 toothpaste). Cycles of treatment were done for 5 minutes every 12 hours for 14 days. The samples were stored in freshly prepared artificial saliva between cycles. The mixed-effects model was used to quantify the effect of different remineralization agents. All statistics were computed using STATA software (version14.1; Stata, College Station, TX). All statistical tests were two-tailed and interpreted at the 0.05 significance level. Both agents improved the surface hardness. Clinpro 5000 improved the surface hardness by 12.7 (P value 0.012), and Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief improved surface hardness by 18.2 (P value <0.0001), However when both treatments are compared with each other, there was no statistical significance among them. When compared to the control group, both treatments “Clinpro™ 5000 and Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief” have significantly improved enamel's SMH. Hindawi 2021-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7837783/ /pubmed/33531901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6644069 Text en Copyright © 2021 Hassan Alsubhi et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Alsubhi, Hassan
Gabbani, Mohammad
Alsolami, Abdulsalam
Alotaibi, Mohammed
Abuljadayel, Jameel
Taju, Waleed
Bukhari, Omair
A Comparison between Two Different Remineralizing Agents against White Spot Lesions: An In Vitro Study
title A Comparison between Two Different Remineralizing Agents against White Spot Lesions: An In Vitro Study
title_full A Comparison between Two Different Remineralizing Agents against White Spot Lesions: An In Vitro Study
title_fullStr A Comparison between Two Different Remineralizing Agents against White Spot Lesions: An In Vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison between Two Different Remineralizing Agents against White Spot Lesions: An In Vitro Study
title_short A Comparison between Two Different Remineralizing Agents against White Spot Lesions: An In Vitro Study
title_sort comparison between two different remineralizing agents against white spot lesions: an in vitro study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7837783/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33531901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6644069
work_keys_str_mv AT alsubhihassan acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy
AT gabbanimohammad acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy
AT alsolamiabdulsalam acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy
AT alotaibimohammed acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy
AT abuljadayeljameel acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy
AT tajuwaleed acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy
AT bukhariomair acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy
AT alsubhihassan comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy
AT gabbanimohammad comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy
AT alsolamiabdulsalam comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy
AT alotaibimohammed comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy
AT abuljadayeljameel comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy
AT tajuwaleed comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy
AT bukhariomair comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy