Surface roughness and microhardness of enamel white spot lesions treated with different treatment methods.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the surface roughness and microhardness of artificial enamel white spot lesions before and after WSL formation, after treatment (Opalsutre™ microabrasion, Sylc® bioactive glass, and ICON® resin infiltration), and after pH cycling with the help of the profilometer surface roughness tester and the digital Vickers microhardness tester.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-five extracted molars were used to acquire one hundred specimens. 50 specimens were randomly assigned to five groups (n = 10) for the surface roughness study: 1) Sound group, 2) WSL group, 3) micro abrasion (MA; Opalustre, Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA), 4) bioactive glass 45S5 Sylc powder (Sylc; Denfotex Research Ltd, Inverkeithing, UK), and 5) ICON resin infiltration (ICON; DMG, Hamburg, Germany). An additional 25 specimens were used to obtain 50 enamel slabs for the surface microhardness study, which were also assigned to the same groups. All groups underwent a final stage of pH cycling. Surface roughness and surface microhardness measurements were performed at different stages for all groups.

RESULTS

Regarding surface roughness, ICON significantly reduced the surface roughness compared to Opalustre and Sylc, with no significant difference between Opalustre and Sylc. In terms of surface microhardness, ICON showed the highest improvement, followed by Sylc and then Opalustre. Both surface roughness and microhardness were significantly affected by demineralization, partially improved after treatment, and then regressed significantly after pH cycling.

CONCLUSION

ICON resin infiltrant can be considered as a superior treatment option for improving surface roughness and microhardness, while Opalustre demonstrated relatively the poorest performance compared to the other treatment options. It is noteworthy that the pH cycling procedure had an adverse impact irrespective of the treatment option used.