Comparative evaluation of enamel microhardness after using two different remineralizing agents on artificially demineralized human enamel: An in vitro study.

Aim The purpose of this study was to compare the remineralization outcomes of two agents using the Vickers microhardness test (VMHT) on artificially induced enamel subsurface lesions. Materials and Methods Forty sound extracted premolars were selected as samples for the current study and divided into four groups of 10 teeth each: Clinpro (group 1), Remin Pro (group 2), untreated positive control (group 3), and a demineralized negative control (group 4). All the sample groups were assessed first at baseline then after demineralization and remineralization using DIAGNOdent. After the remineralization process, VMHT was performed on all sample groups to assess surface microhardness (SMH). The results obtained were then compared using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the difference in SMH. Results Vickers microhardness number values were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and samples in the experimental groups 1 and 2 showed a statistically significant difference compared to the control groups (P < 0.05). Remineralization was higher in the Remin Pro group, followed by Clinpro group. Conclusions The results of this in vitro study show that both Remin Pro and Clinpro are equally effective as remineralizing agents. Although Remin Pro tended to yield a higher microhardness, no significant differences were observed between the two agents. Relevance for Patients Enamel mineral loss leads to the degradation of the surface and subsurface structures of teeth. Natural remineralization that occurs physiologically is not sufficient to overcome the hurdles of mineral loss a tooth undergoes due to changes in food habits and lifestyle. A thought on remineralization and management such as prescribing remineralizing agents and regular professional topical fluoride applications would definitely render satisfactory results by a strong healthy enamel.