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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Dentistry |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6644069 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832563152611442688 |
|---|---|
| author | Hassan Alsubhi Mohammad Gabbani Abdulsalam Alsolami Mohammed Alotaibi Jameel Abuljadayel Waleed Taju Omair Bukhari |
| author_facet | Hassan Alsubhi Mohammad Gabbani Abdulsalam Alsolami Mohammed Alotaibi Jameel Abuljadayel Waleed Taju Omair Bukhari |
| author_sort | Hassan Alsubhi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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 | Article |
| id | doaj-art-6916e6faeda549919d89373a5f8ff5fa |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-8728 1687-8736 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Dentistry |
| spelling | doaj-art-6916e6faeda549919d89373a5f8ff5fa2025-02-03T01:20:49ZengWileyInternational Journal of Dentistry1687-87281687-87362021-01-01202110.1155/2021/66440696644069A Comparison between Two Different Remineralizing Agents against White Spot Lesions: An In Vitro StudyHassan Alsubhi0Mohammad Gabbani1Abdulsalam Alsolami2Mohammed Alotaibi3Jameel Abuljadayel4Waleed Taju5Omair Bukhari6Umm Al Qura University, Faculty of Dentistry, Makkah 21955, Saudi ArabiaUmm Al Qura University, Faculty of Dentistry, Makkah 21955, Saudi ArabiaUmm Al Qura University, Faculty of Dentistry, Makkah 21955, Saudi ArabiaUmm Al Qura University, Faculty of Dentistry, Makkah 21955, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Umm Al Qura University, Faculty of Dentistry, Makkah 21955, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Umm Al Qura University, Faculty of Dentistry, Makkah 21955, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Umm Al Qura University, Faculty of Dentistry, Makkah 21955, Saudi ArabiaEnamel 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6644069 |
| spellingShingle | Hassan Alsubhi Mohammad Gabbani Abdulsalam Alsolami Mohammed Alotaibi Jameel Abuljadayel Waleed Taju Omair Bukhari A Comparison between Two Different Remineralizing Agents against White Spot Lesions: An In Vitro Study International Journal of Dentistry |
| 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 |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6644069 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hassanalsubhi acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy AT mohammadgabbani acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy AT abdulsalamalsolami acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy AT mohammedalotaibi acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy AT jameelabuljadayel acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy AT waleedtaju acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy AT omairbukhari acomparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy AT hassanalsubhi comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy AT mohammadgabbani comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy AT abdulsalamalsolami comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy AT mohammedalotaibi comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy AT jameelabuljadayel comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy AT waleedtaju comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy AT omairbukhari comparisonbetweentwodifferentremineralizingagentsagainstwhitespotlesionsaninvitrostudy |