| Literature DB >> 33304082 |
Mohammed Alhamed1, Faisal Almalki1, Ahmad Alselami1, Tariq Alotaibi1, Wahdan Elkwatehy1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of three different remineralizing agents (Tricalcium phosphate paste, Fluoride varnish, and Nano-hydroxyapatite gel) using the DIAGNOdent device.Entities:
Keywords: DIAGNOdent; Fluoride varnish; In vivo; Initial caries; Nano-hydroxyapatite; Tri-calcium phosphate
Year: 2019 PMID: 33304082 PMCID: PMC7714979 DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2019.11.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi Dent J ISSN: 1013-9052
DIAGNOdent measurements according to manufacture information.
| Caries site | Healthy tooth substance score (1) | Beginning demineralization score (2) | Strong demineralization score (3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pits and fissure caries | 0–12 | 13–24 | >25 |
| Smooth surface caries | 0–7 | 8–15 | >16 |
The distribution of carious lesions among the three groups.
| Groups | Pits and fissure initial caries no (%) | Smooth surface initial caries no (%) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 20 (67%) | 10 (33%) | 30 (100%) |
| Group B | 19 (63%) | 11 (37%) | 30 (100%) |
| Group C | 21 (70%) | 9 (30%) | 30 (100%) |
| Total | 60 (67%) | 30 (33%) | 90 (100%) |
| P | 0.837 | ||
No = Number, group A = TCP, group B = Fluoride varnish, group C = Nano-hydroxyapatite, p = p value which calculated by Chi square test.
The effect of different remineralizing agents on initial carious lesions.
| Groups | Baseline Mean ± SD | Follow up Mean ± SD | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 16.00 ± 3.714 | 10.37 ± 3.37 | 0.000* |
| Group B | 16.90 ± 3.633 | 10.60 ± 2.74 | 0.000* |
| Group C | 15.50 ± 3.58 | 7.80 ± 3.13 | 0.000* |
| One-way ANOVA | 0.311 | 0.001* |
Group A = TCP, group B = Fluoride varnish, group C = Nano-hydroxyapatite, SD = Standard Deviation, p = p value calculated by paired t test, * = statistically significant values, the numbers of Mean ± SD represent DIAGNOdent scores.
The effect of different remineralizing agents on initial carious lesions of different surfaces.
| Groups | Pits and fissure initial caries | Smooth surface initial caries | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline Mean ± SD | Follow up Mean ± SD | P | Baseline Mean ± SD | Follow up Mean ± SD | P | |
| Group A | 17.35 ± 3.66 | 10.85 ± 3.50 | 0.000* | 13.30 ± 2.00 | 9.40 ± 3.03 | 0.000* |
| Group B | 18.89 ± 2.83 | 11.53 ± 2.67 | 0.000* | 13.45 ± 1.81 | 9.00 ± 2.09 | 0.000* |
| Group C | 16.24 ± 3.55 | 8.33 ± 3.35 | 0.000* | 14.44 ± 3.88 | 6.67 ± 2.45 | 0.000* |
| One-way ANOVA | 0.053 | 0.006* | 0.602 | 0.058 | ||
Group A = TCP, group B = Fluoride varnish, group C = Nano-hydroxyapatite, SD = Standard Deviation, p = p value calculated by paired t test, * = statistically significant values, the numbers of Mean ± SD represent DIAGNOdent scores.
Multiple comparisons between every two groups.
| Multiple comparisons | Pits and fissure initial caries | Smooth surface initial caries | Total effect | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline P | Follow up P | Baseline P | Follow up P | Baseline P | Follow up P | |
| A VS B | 0.334 | 0.788 | 0.990 | 0.931 | 0.594 | 0.954 |
| A VS C | 0.546 | 0.039* | 0.619 | 0.067 | 0.851 | 0.005* |
| B VS C | 0.420 | 0.007* | 0.687 | 0.121 | 0.288 | 0.002* |
A = TCP group, B = Fluoride varnish group, C = Nano-hydroxyapatite group, P = P value calculated by Tukey test, *= statistically significant values.