|
Current issue
Archive
Manuscripts accepted
About the journal
Editorial board
Reviewers
Abstracting and indexing
Subscription
Contact
Instructions for authors
Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
|
3/2025
vol. 78 abstract:
Original paper
Comparative evaluation of different re-mineralizing agents for enamel protection after pH-cycling
Ali Shyaa Al-Saadi
1, 2
,
Ahmed Gamal El-Din Nafady
3
,
Nabil Abd Al-Hameed Al-Aggan
4, 5
,
Abdelrahman Adel Hasan
3
,
Nasser Mohey Shehab
4
,
Nafesa Mostafa Sakr
6
,
Mahmoud Elsayed Fetouh
7
,
Hatem Abdul-Monaem El-Bially
7
J Stoma 2025; 78, 3: 176-185
Online publish date: 2025/09/22
View
full text
Get citation
ENW EndNote
BIB JabRef, Mendeley
RIS Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
Introduction
Dental caries has evolved from a surgical approach focusing on restorative treatment to a medical model emphasizing disease prevention and tooth structure conservation. Objectives Comparative evaluation of three different re-mineralizing agents, including nano-bioactive glass (N-BAG), chitosan-loaded nano-hydroxyapatite (CS/N-HAp), and nano-silver fluoride (NSF), for their ability to prevent sound enamel from de-mineralization after pH-cycling. Material and methods A total of 40 premolars were equally divided into four groups (n = 10) according to the re-mineralizing agent used. Group 1: N-BAG, group 2: CS/N-Hap, group 3: NSF, and group 4 (control group): no re-mineralizing agent applied. Samples underwent pH-cycling for 7 days. Each cycle involved two de-mineralization cycles and 18 hours of artificial saliva immersion. Re-mineralizing regimen was performed before and after de-mineralization cycles. Control group did not receive any re-mineralizing agent, and was subjected to the same pH-cycling procedures. Environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM) with a built-up energy dispersive X-ray unit was used to assess surface morphology and mineral content before pH-cycling and after pH-cycling. Results The ESEM results indicated that group 1 (N-BAG) showed the best preservation of enamel structure, while group 4 (control group) displayed the most eroded surface. After pH-cycling, there was a significant increase in mineral content, with group 1 (N-BAG) demonstrated the highest range of calcium and phosphorus gain, and carbon loss, followed by group 2 (CS/N-HAp) and group 3 (NSF). Conclusions The tested re-mineralizing agents presented varying degrees of efficacy in resisting acidic enamel erosion. However, the N-BAG agent showed superior mineral gain and enamel protection against acidic challenges. keywords:
nano-bioactive glass, chitosan-loaded nano-hydroxyapatite, nano-silver fluoride, enamel re-mineralization, de-mineralization prevention |