Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
INTRODUCTION: Enamel white spot subsurface lesions compromise esthetics and precede cavitation; therefore, they must be halted by effective materials.OBJECTIVE: This study was done to evaluate the penetration depth and enamel microhardness of artificial enamel lesions treated with Icon, CPP-ACP, Exite F.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of 49 sound premolars, indicated for orthodontic extraction were used to form the study group. The teeth were coated with a nail varnish, leaving a window of 4 mm × 4 mm, on buccal surfaces of sound, intact enamel. Teeth were immersed in demineralizing solution for 4 days to produce artificial enamel lesions. Seven of the demineralized teeth were treated with low viscosity resin (Icon Infiltrant, DMG, Hamburg, Germany), Seven with CPP-ACP (Tooth Mousse from G. C. Corporation, Japan) and seven with Exite F adhesive. Specimens were observed with a stereomicroscope and the penetration depth of the materials were measured. Enamel microhardness test were determined also on specimens using calibrated Vickers indenter.RESULTS: The maximum penetration depth was found in group I (Icon) followed by group II (CPP-ACP) finally group III (Exite F) and there was significant difference between them p=0.001 and the maximum microhardness was found in group I (Icon) followed by group II (CPP-ACP) followed by group III (Exite F) finally group IV(control) and there was significant difference between them p=0.009.CONCLUSIONS: Resin infiltration significantly has the highest penetration depth in comparison to Cpp-acp and Exite F,resin infiltration also significantly increase microhardness of demineralized enamel in comparison to Cpp-acp and Exite F.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
M et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: