Comparative evaluation of remineralization potential of novel bioactive agents on eroded enamel lesions: A single-blinded in vitro study

Abstract

Objective: The escalating prevalence of noncarious tooth wear stands as a critical concern in the backdrop of evolving lifestyles and dietary patterns. Dental erosion, a progressive condition induced by both endogenous and exogenous acidic influences, directly impacts enamel integrity, resulting in surface loss. The contemporary surge in carbonated beverage consumption further exacerbates this erosive milieu, underscoring the urgency for dental practitioners to adopt meticulous treatment strategies. Existing literature underscores a noteworthy 94% reduction in tooth erosion risk for individuals abstaining from sweetened soft beverages, emphasizing the imperative for a well-devised remineralization protocol to counter demineralized surfaces. Methodology: Seventy-three enamel specimens were taken. Forty samples were subjected to pre-operative hardness testing, and five samples were subjected to baseline EDX evaluation followed by grouping of samples (Group 1 = control Group; Group 2 = casein phosphopeptide–amorphous calcium phosphate fluoride [CPP-ACPF] Group; Group 3 = Biomin F Group; and Group 4 = self-assembling peptide [SAP] P-114 Group). A demineralization–remineralization cycle was carried out for 5 days followed by testing through Vickers Microhardness Tester, EDX Evaluation, and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Imaging. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance followed by intergroup analysis using Tukey’s post hoc test with SPSS software 25.0 version. Results: The mean percentage change in microhardness values was 30.05% in Group 1, 24.21% in Group 2, 18.85% in Group 3, and 12.08% in Group 4. The mean Ca/P ratio of samples tested through EDAX was 2.20 at baseline, 1.40 in Group 1 (Control Group), 1.62 in Group 2 (CPP-ACPF), 1.82 in Group 3 (Biomin F), and 2.01 in Group 4 (SAP-P114). Postintervention values were statistically significant from baseline values in both parameters. Conclusion: Curodont Protect exhibits superior efficacy, offering valuable insights for future in vivo studies and clinical applications. The multifaceted evaluation, encompassing microhardness testing, SEM analysis, and EDXS assessment, contributes to a nuanced interpretation of the agents’ impact, paving the way for informed decisions in clinical practice and future research endeavors.