PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
The main objective of the study was to compare two different remineralising materials containing casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate, bioactive glass on enamel surface microhardness.
Thirty premolars were used for specimen preparation. Group 1 (the control group) consisted of intact enamel samples, group 2: CPP-ACPF (Tooth Mousse Plus), group 3: bioenamel remineralising gel (Prevest DenPro). All specimens were subjected to demineralisation except the control group, followed by which remineralising agents were applied. A universal hardness tester was used to assess the surface microhardness of all samples. Results were analysed using one-way ANOVA test and comparison was analysed using Scheffe\'s post hoc least significant difference (LSD) test.
Both remineralising agents used in groups 2 and 3 have shown significant outcome in terms of improving the surface microhardness in comparison with the control group. Group 2 increased the enamel hardness by 8.34 where P = 0.023 whereas group 3 increased the hardness by 5.87, where P = 0.01.
Group 2 has a superior hardness value than group 3; however, no statistically significant results were obtained between both the groups.
Thirty premolars were used for specimen preparation. Group 1 (the control group) consisted of intact enamel samples, group 2: CPP-ACPF (Tooth Mousse Plus), group 3: bioenamel remineralising gel (Prevest DenPro). All specimens were subjected to demineralisation except the control group, followed by which remineralising agents were applied. A universal hardness tester was used to assess the surface microhardness of all samples. Results were analysed using one-way ANOVA test and comparison was analysed using Scheffe\'s post hoc least significant difference (LSD) test.
Both remineralising agents used in groups 2 and 3 have shown significant outcome in terms of improving the surface microhardness in comparison with the control group. Group 2 increased the enamel hardness by 8.34 where P = 0.023 whereas group 3 increased the hardness by 5.87, where P = 0.01.
Group 2 has a superior hardness value than group 3; however, no statistically significant results were obtained between both the groups.
摘要：
该研究的主要目的是比较两种含有酪蛋白磷酸肽-无定形磷酸钙的不同再矿化材料，搪瓷表面显微硬度的生物活性玻璃。
30颗前磨牙用于标本制备。第1组（对照组）由完整的釉质样品组成，第2组：CPP-ACPF（牙齿慕斯加号），组3:生物釉质再矿化凝胶(PrevestDenPro)。除对照组外，所有标本均进行了脱矿质处理，然后应用再矿化剂。使用通用硬度计评估所有样品的表面显微硬度。使用单因素方差分析对结果进行分析,并使用Scheffe的事后最小显著性差异(LSD)检验对比较进行分析。
与对照组相比,组2和3中使用的两种再矿化剂在改善表面显微硬度方面均显示出显著结果。第2组牙釉质硬度增加8.34，其中P=0.023，而第3组硬度增加5.87，其中P=0.01。
第2组的硬度值优于第3组的硬度值。两组间无统计学意义的结果.
30颗前磨牙用于标本制备。第1组（对照组）由完整的釉质样品组成，第2组：CPP-ACPF（牙齿慕斯加号），组3:生物釉质再矿化凝胶(PrevestDenPro)。除对照组外，所有标本均进行了脱矿质处理，然后应用再矿化剂。使用通用硬度计评估所有样品的表面显微硬度。使用单因素方差分析对结果进行分析,并使用Scheffe的事后最小显著性差异(LSD)检验对比较进行分析。
与对照组相比,组2和3中使用的两种再矿化剂在改善表面显微硬度方面均显示出显著结果。第2组牙釉质硬度增加8.34，其中P=0.023，而第3组硬度增加5.87，其中P=0.01。
第2组的硬度值优于第3组的硬度值。两组间无统计学意义的结果.
