article · BMC Oral Health
INTRODUCTION: Nanotechnology offers new approaches and endless opportunities for remineralizing tooth decay without being toxic or causing allergies. This study aimed to determine the effect of nanosilver fluoride (NSF) on the remineralization potential of enamel caries-like lesions compared to 5% sodium fluoride varnish in permanent teeth. METHODS: Fifteen teeth (molars and premolars) were gathered, cleaned, and polished using a scaler. After sectioning the teeth mesiodistally and removing the roots, the thirty specimens were subjected to a demineralized solution to induce early enamel lesions and then assigned randomly into two equal groups. The test materials were applied, and then all the specimens were subjected to a pH cycling model for 30 days. DIAGNOdent and surface roughness were investigated, and an evaluation of the enamel Ca and P weight% for Ca/P ratio calculation was done using SEM-EDX to analyze the specimens at the end of the study. The data were analyzed using an independent t-test. RESULTS: The mean values for the DIAGNOdent measurements for NSF and NaF at baseline and after demineralization were not significantly different (p > 0.05). After treatment, NaF varnish showed a significantly higher mean DIAGNOdent measurement (11.8 ± 5.80) than NSF (4.7 ± 1.6). The mean surface roughness of the NaF group (1.64 ± 0.39) was much higher than NSF's mean surface roughness (1.07 ± 0.21). Specimens treated with NSF had statistically significant smoother surfaces (p < 0.001). The NSF group had a higher mean Ca/P ratio (2.9 ± 0.35) than NaF (2.2 ± 0.11). This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: The study reveals that nano silver fluoride is a more effective treatment than sodium fluoride varnish in enhancing teeth's clinical characteristics, particularly in terms of mineral content and surface roughness, suggesting it could be an improved strategy to prevent dental caries and maintain enamel integrity.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04668-x
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.