The study reveals the remineralizing effects of fluorinated varnishes on enamel, suggesting significant improvements in hardness and surface roughness.
Dental caries is a prevalent health condition affecting 87% of the population. The application of fluorinated varnishes to incipient lesions promotes remineralization. To evaluate the remineralizing effect of three fluorinated varnishes through chemical and physical characterization of incipient enamel lesions in vitro, a total of 150 enamel surfaces were randomly divided into five groups (n = 30): healthy enamel, initial lesion, Fluor-Protector, β-Clinpro-White-Varnish, and Duraphat. All groups, except for the healthy enamel, were immersed in a demineralizing solution (pH 4.4) for 96 h. Remineralization was assessed using a pH cycling model over 5, 10, and 15 days. Fluoride release was measured via ISE-F, and enamel was analyzed by Raman spectroscopy (PO43−), roughness, and Vickers hardness. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and a post hoc test (Tukey). Ion Selective Electron-Fluor showed a residual F concentration of 0.40 ppm for the Fluor-Protector remineralizing solution: 40.00 ppm for Clinpro-White-Varnish, and 50.0 ppm for Duraphat. Raman analysis confirmed PO43− at 956 cm−1 mainly in CDu group. Roughness decreased with varnish application: Fluor-Protector (0.36 µm), β-Clinpro-White-Varnish (0.73 µm), and Duraphat (0.65 µm). Hardness increased with Fluor-Protector. Statistically significant differences were found between FP and other types of varnish. Fluorinated varnishes enhance remineralization and reduce enamel roughness and demineralization. Fluor Protector and β-Clinpro-White-Varnish showed the most favorable results, suggesting their recommendation for high-risk pediatric patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pineda-Domínguez et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: