Assessment of Enamel Surface Microhardness with different Fluoride Varnishes–An <i>In Vitro</i> Study

Punathil, Sameer; Pulayath, Civy V; Ismail, Siraj P; Bavabeedu, Shashit Shetty; Moyin, Shabna; Uthappa, Roshan

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2425

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…19,20 Some studies investigated whether these varnishes: 1) release enough fluoride in the surrounding storage media to allow the formation of CaF 2 reservoirs on the enamel substrate and/or, 2) present a remineralization effect on artificial enamel lesions. 11,21,22,23,24,25 Only Fernández et al 11 evaluated the fraction of fluoride soluble in varnish needed for immediate reaction with hard dental tissues to form CaF 2 -like products, and the insoluble fluoride particles present in the varnish matrix, which could prolong the reaction when dissolved by saliva.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remineralizing effect of commercial fluoride varnishes on artificial enamel lesions

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate soluble and insoluble fluoride concentrations in commercial varnishes, and their remineralization effect on artificial caries enamel lesions using surface and cross-sectional microhardness evaluations. Forty bovine enamel blocks were separated into four groups (n=10): control (no treatment), Enamelast (Ultradent Products), Duraphat (Colgate-Palmolive) and Clinpro White Varnish (3M ESPE). Surface enamel microhardness evaluations were obtained, artificial enamel caries lesions were developed by dynamic pH-cycling, and the varnishes were then applied every 6 days, after which the enamel blocks were submitted to dynamic remineralization by pH cycles. After removal of the varnishes, the enamel surfaces were reassessed for microhardness. The blocks were sectioned longitudinally, and cross-sectional microhardness measurements were performed at different surface depths (up to 300 μm depth). Polarized light microscopy images (PLMI) were made to analyze subsurface caries lesions. The fluoride concentration in whole (soluble and insoluble fluoride) and centrifuged (soluble fluoride) varnishes was determined using an extraction method with acetone. The data were analyzed to evaluate the surface microhardness, making adjustments for generalized linear models. There was a significant decrease in enamel surface microhardness after performing all the treatments (p<0.0001). Enamelast and Duraphat showed significantly higher enamel microhardness values than the control and the Clinpro groups (p = 0.0002). Microhardness loss percentage was significantly lower for Enamelast (p = 0.071; One-way ANOVA). PLMI showed that subsurface caries lesions were not remineralized with the varnish treatments. No significant differences in the in-depth microhardness levels (p = 0.7536; ANOVA) were observed among the treatments. Enamelast presented higher soluble and insoluble fluoride concentrations than the other varnishes (p < 0.0001; Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests). Enamelast and Duraphat varnishes promoted enamel surface remineralization, but no varnish remineralized the subsurface lesion body. Although insoluble and soluble fluoride concentration values did not correspond to those declared by the manufacturer, Enamelast presented higher fluoride concentration than the others.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remineralizing effect of commercial fluoride varnishes on artificial enamel lesions

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fluor defender® contains 0.1% fluorosilane in its formulation (a polyurethane-based compound) that may act by inhibiting the adhesion of Streptococcus mutans cells to the enamel surface and promoting fluoride release which inhibits demineralization (Baygin et al 2014 ; Byeon et al 2016 ; Punathil et al 2018 ) and promotes remineralization (Yadav et al 2019 ). Moreover, the protective quality of Fluor defender® is also attributed to the mechanical barrier provided by preventing direct contact of acids on the surface.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the antibacterial activity of Enamelast® and Fluor defender® fluoride varnishes against Streptococcus mutans biofilm: an in vitro study in primary teeth

Matar

Darwish

Salma

et al. 2023

Eur Arch Paediatr Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of the current work was to compare the antibacterial activity of Enamelast® and Fluor defender® fluoride varnish on biofilm generation by Streptococcus mutans on extracted primary teeth. Methods Thirty-six primary molars were collected and sliced into seventy-two test model disks. All specimens were examined, and the cracked or broken ones were discarded. A total number of specimens (n = 54) were divided into two experimental analyses viz; biofilm formation (n = 27) and microscopic examination (n = 27). Specimens of each analysis were tested under different experimental conditions: a negative control group (n = 9), Fluor defender group (n = 9), and Enamelast group (n = 9). Following treatment, biofilms were generated by adherent Streptococcus mutans on the test model disks on three time intervals: 24 h (n = 3), 48 h (n = 3), and 72 h (n = 3) for each analysis. Then, for biofilm formation analysis, the biofilm was detected spectrophotometrically at 620 nm after being stained by crystal violet. For microscopical analysis, the surfaces of the test model disks were visualized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and each image was processed and analyzed using ImageJ software. Results At 48 and 72 h, Enamelast® and Fluor defender®-treated group showed significantly (p < 0.001) slight adhered bacterial cells when compared with the negative control group as revealed by the absorbance and SEM. Compared with the Fluor defender®-treated group, the absorbance of the Enamelast®-treated group showed a significant (p < 0.001) increase by approximately 7- and 16.5-fold at 48 and 72 h, respectively. Similarly, SEM showed that the number of bacterial cells adhered to enamel surfaces in the Fluor defender®-treated group was significantly (p < 0.001) fewer than the Enamelast®-treated group by approximately 36.55% and 20.62% at 48 and 72 h after exposure, respectively. Conclusion We conclude that the anti-biofilm activity of Fluor defender® against Streptococcus mutans was significantly (p < 0.001) greater than Enamelast® fluoride varnish. The use of Fluor defender® is encouraged as a preventive measure in children with the high risk of developing dental caries.

show abstract

“…The kind and quantity of fluoride compounds that are generated on the enamel surface determine this. [ 11 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Remineralization Ability of Different Fluoride Varnishes on Artificial Enamel Lesion of Primary Teeth – A Comparative Study

Alazmah

2024

Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The current study’s aim was to evaluate the potential of various fluoride varnishes to remineralize artificial enamel lesions on primary teeth. Materials and Methods: For the study, 90 deciduous molar teeth that were implicated for extraction were taken. A window region with a size of 3 × 3 mm was located in the middle of the tooth’s coronal surface. The remaining portion was given a coat of nail polish and given time to dry. A demineralizing solution was used to create the artificial enamel lesion. The samples were randomized into three experimental groups at random, with 30 samples in each group. Group 1: Application of Clinpro White Varnish, Group 2: Application of Duraphat Varnish, and Group 3: Application of MI Varnish. After 14 days, samples from each group were examined under scanning electron microscopy at a magnification of 1000× to determine whether remineralization had occurred. Microhardness was also determined using a microhardness tester. Result: Before the intervention, the mean demineralized enamel lesion in the Clinpro White Varnish group was 134.44 ± 0.04, in the Duraphat Varnish group was 133.76 ± 0.12, and in the MI Varnish group was 133.89 ± 0.08. After intervention, the maximum remineralized area was found in the MI Varnish group (82.74 ± 0.18) followed by the Clinpro White Varnish group (101.43 ± 0.16) and the Duraphat Varnish group (104.11 ± 0.10). After the intervention, there was a statistically significant difference found between the groups. After the intervention, the maximum microhardness mean value improved in the MI Varnish group (257.03 ± 1.09 to 261.18 ± 1.20) followed by Clinpro White Varnish (258.78 ± 1.64 to 260.10 ± 1.22) and Duraphat Varnish group (255.24 ± 1.51 to 258.02 ± 0.89). Conclusion: According to the findings of the current investigation, all of the varnishes utilized in this in vitro experiment are capable of correcting early enamel defects on primary teeth. However, MI Varnish group was very effective compared to the Clinpro White Varnish group and the Duraphat Varnish group.

show abstract

Assessment of Enamel Surface Microhardness with different Fluoride Varnishes–An In Vitro Study

Cited by 9 publications

References 17 publications

Remineralizing effect of commercial fluoride varnishes on artificial enamel lesions

Remineralizing effect of commercial fluoride varnishes on artificial enamel lesions

Evaluation of the antibacterial activity of Enamelast® and Fluor defender® fluoride varnishes against Streptococcus mutans biofilm: an in vitro study in primary teeth

Assessment of Remineralization Ability of Different Fluoride Varnishes on Artificial Enamel Lesion of Primary Teeth – A Comparative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About