| Literature DB >> 34514061 |
Hossein Assarzadeh1, Malihe Karrabi1, Reza Fekrazad2,3,4, Yaser Tabarraei5.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Studies on the efficacy of erbium laser for enhancement of enamel resistance to acid attacks and its effects on fluoride uptake by the enamel are limited.Entities:
Keywords: Er:YAG laser; Fluoride ion; Remineralization; White spot lesion
Year: 2021 PMID: 34514061 PMCID: PMC8417547 DOI: 10.30476/DENTJODS.2020.86300.1187
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Dent (Shiraz) ISSN: 2345-6418
Study Groups
| Group | Intervention |
|---|---|
| 1) C+ | Positive control group |
| 2) WS | Negative control group with WSLs |
| 3) F | WSLs subjected to APF gel application |
| 4) L | WSLs subjected to Er:YAG laser irradiation |
| 5) FL | WSLs subjected to APF gel application followed by Er:YAG laser irradiation |
| 6) LF | WSLs subjected to Er:YAG laser irradiation followed by fluoride gel application |
Mean and standard deviation of fluoride concentration in the study groups
| Group | N | MIN | MAX | Means ±SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Control | 15 | 13 | 81 | 31.46±1.66 |
| 2) White spot | 15 | 11 | 36 | 16.20±7.41 |
| 3) APF | 15 | 111 | 328 | 231.67±6.40 |
| 4) Laser | 15 | 99 | 365 | 201.53±7.49 |
| 5) APF- laser | 15 | 111 | 573 | 332.07±129.17 |
| 6) Laser-APF | 15 | 191 | 603 | 341.27±153.86 |
Tukey post hoc test comparing each group with all other ones
| Group | Mean Difference |
| 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control versus white spot | 15.26 | .997 | -82.36-112.89 |
| Control versus laser | -170.06* | .000 | -267.69- -72.43 |
| Control versus APF | -200.20* | .000 | -297.82--102.57 |
| Control versus APF- laser | -300.60* | .000 | -398.22--202.97 |
| Control versus laser- APF | -309.80* | .000 | -407.42--212.17 |
| white spot versus laser | -185.33* | .000 | -282.96- - 87.70 |
| white spot versus APF | -215.46* | .000 | -313.09--117.83 |
| white spot versus APF-laser | -315.86* | .000 | -413.49--218.23 |
| white spot versus laser-APF | -325.06* | .000 | -422.69--227.43 |
| Laser versus APF | -30.13 | .945 | -127.76- 67.49 |
| Laser versus APF- laser | -130.53* | .003 | -228.16--32.90 |
| Laser versus laser- APF | -139.73 | .001 | -237.36-- 42.10 |
| APF versus APF- laser | -100.40* | .040 | -198.02--2.77 |
| APF versus laser- APF | -109.60 | .019 | -207.22-- 11.97 |
| APF- laser versus laser | 130.53* | .003 | 32.90- 228.16 |
| APF-laser versus laser-APF | -9.20 | 1.000 | -106.82-88.42 |
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets
| Group | N | Subset for alpha= 0.05 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| C+ | 15 | 16.20 | ||
| WS | 15 | 31.46 | ||
| F | 15 | 231.67 | ||
| L | 15 | 201.53 | ||
| FL | 15 | 332.07 | ||
| LF | 15 | 341.27 | ||
| Sig. | .997 | .945 | 1.000 | |