Assessment of enamel surface microhardness with different fluoride varnishes-An in vitro study

Aim: This study aimed to assess the microhardness of the enamel surface after fluoride varnish application. Materials and methods: Thymol of 0.1% in distilled water was used to store the collected healthy sixty teeth. The samples were divided into three groups randomly as per the different applicati...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bavabeedu, S.S (Author), Ismail, S.P (Author), Moyin, S. (Author), Pulayath, C.V (Author), Punathil, S. (Author), Uthappa, R. (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:View Fulltext in Publisher
LEADER 03440nam a2200553Ia 4500
001 10.5005-jp-journals-10024-2425
008 220706s2018 CNT 000 0 und d
020 |a 15263711 (ISSN) 
245 1 0 |a Assessment of enamel surface microhardness with different fluoride varnishes-An in vitro study 
260 0 |b Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd  |c 2018 
856 |z View Fulltext in Publisher  |u https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2425 
520 3 |a Aim: This study aimed to assess the microhardness of the enamel surface after fluoride varnish application. Materials and methods: Thymol of 0.1% in distilled water was used to store the collected healthy sixty teeth. The samples were divided into three groups randomly as per the different application of fluoride varnish. Group A: Fluor protector varnish (FIV) application, group B: Duraphat varnish application and group C: Bifluorid 10 varnish application. The present study followed the pH cycling protocol. Microhardness tester was used to test the microhardness of enamel surface and was expressed as microhardness measurements of Vickers hardness number (VHN) which was performed at baseline, on the 3rd day andon 7th day. Results: At baseline, group A samples mean SMH value was 230.64 ± 12.32 which was slightly more than groupB with 229.45 ± 10.22 and group C with 230.10 ± 11.45. There was no significant difference showed with the analysis of variance between the groups. On the 3rd day, there was a slight increase in the mean SMH in group A with 235.39 ± 6.44 and no significant difference between the groups was seen statistically. On the 7th day, the group A showed high SMH value of 262.20 ± 4.89 compared to other groups which didn't show a significantly high statistical difference. Conclusion: On conclusion, post-application of fluorprotector varnish showed higher enamel surface microhardness compared to Duraphat and Bifluorid 10 varnishes. Clinical significance: In young children, fluoride varnishes are effectively used as a noninvasive, anti-caries agent in the treatment of initial caries. Therefore, in routine dental practice, the knowledge about different fluoride varnishes is of importance. © Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd. 
650 0 4 |a anticaries agent 
650 0 4 |a Bifluorid 12 
650 0 4 |a calcium fluoride 
650 0 4 |a Calcium Fluoride 
650 0 4 |a Cariostatic Agents 
650 0 4 |a comparative study 
650 0 4 |a Demineralization 
650 0 4 |a dental caries 
650 0 4 |a Dental Caries 
650 0 4 |a Dental Enamel 
650 0 4 |a drug effect 
650 0 4 |a enamel 
650 0 4 |a fluoride varnish 
650 0 4 |a Fluoride varnish 
650 0 4 |a Fluorides, Topical 
650 0 4 |a hardness 
650 0 4 |a Hardness 
650 0 4 |a Hardness Tests 
650 0 4 |a human 
650 0 4 |a Humans 
650 0 4 |a in vitro study 
650 0 4 |a In Vitro Techniques 
650 0 4 |a procedures 
650 0 4 |a Remineralization 
650 0 4 |a sodium fluoride 
650 0 4 |a Sodium Fluoride 
650 0 4 |a sodium fluoride topical preparation 
650 0 4 |a Surface microhardness 
650 0 4 |a Surface Properties 
650 0 4 |a surface property 
700 1 |a Bavabeedu, S.S.  |e author 
700 1 |a Ismail, S.P.  |e author 
700 1 |a Moyin, S.  |e author 
700 1 |a Pulayath, C.V.  |e author 
700 1 |a Punathil, S.  |e author 
700 1 |a Uthappa, R.  |e author 
773 |t Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice