1Professor, Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Army Dental Centre; Research and Referral Hospital, Delhi, India
2Vice Principal, Head of the Department Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, A. B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte (Deemed to be University), Deralakatte, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India
3Lecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, A. B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte (Deemed to be University), Deralakatte, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India
*Corresponding author: Vandana Sadananda Lecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, A. B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte (Deemed to be University), Deralakatte, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India, Mob. +91 98441 16434, e-mail: vandanasadananda@gmail.com
Online published on 29 May, 2018.
The aim of the study was to evaluate microhardness of demineralized enamel following different surface treatment.
114 extracted intact posterior teeth were selected so to obtain 228 samples. They were sectioned mesio-distally and coated with nail varnish so to obtain windows of 3mm × 3mm. All except control were demineralized by placing in demineralizing solution for 24 hours. The samples were divided into 19 groups of six samples each as follows: 1. Control, 2. Demineralized teeth, 3. Laser 2 watts, 4. Laser 2.5 Watts, 5. Laser 3 watts, 6. Laser 3.5 watts, 7. Laser 4 Watts, 8. Enafix, 9. CPP-ACP F, 10. Laser 2 watts + Enafix, 11. Laser 2.5 Watts + Enafix, 12. Laser 3 watts + Enafix, 13 Laser 3.5 watts + Enafix, 14. Laser 4 watts + Enafix, 15. Laser 2 watts + CPP-ACP F, 16. Laser 2.5 Watts + CPP-ACP F, 17. Laser 3 watts + CPP-ACP F, 18. Laser 3.5 watts + CPP-ACP F, 19 Laser 4 watts + CPP-ACP F.
Statistical analysis was done by non-parametric test Kruskal Walis and Mann Whitney and one-way ANOVA test and Post Hoc test for multiple comparison.
The mean hardness value of controls was 262.87. The demineralized group had the least hardness value (101.50). The hardness values of Laser 3.5 watts followed by application of CPP-ACP F paste was the closet to that of control (245.15). The laser 4 watts and CPP-ACP F combination was next best (244.50). The irradiation of 3.5 watts (235.83) and 4.5 watts (235.87) was just marginally less than the same wattage followed by CPP-ACP F group.
Aluminium Gallium Arsenide Laser when used in combination with CPP-ACP F brings about statistically significant increase in surface hardness and results are comparable to lasers when used alone. The scores are similar to control tooth.
Aluminium Gallium Arsenide Laser, surface hardness, surface treatment
