Comparative Evaluation of Fluoride Varnishes on Enamel Microhardness: An In Vitro Study

Aim: This study compared the effects of various fluoride varnishes on the microhardness of the enamel surface.Materials and methods: 60 sound, healthy, noncarious premolars that had all of their surfaces intact and had been removed for orthodontic purposes were chosen for this investigation.The samples were stored in 0.2% thymol-containing distilled water.The buccal surface's enamel was removed into a 2 mm by 2 mm window, and the exposed enamel surface was then embedded in acrylic.The 60 samples were then split into three groups of 20 samples each at random.Group I: Application of Clinpro White Varnish, group II: application of MI varnish, group III: application of Fluorprotector Varnish.To simulate oral circumstances in the laboratory, the samples were subjected to a pH cycle.The microhardness testing machine was used to assess the surface microhardness (SMH) of enamel.The Vickers Hardness Number (VHN) was used to express the values.Results: The mean enamel surface microhardness after pH cycling was better in MI varnish group i.e., 296.78 9.50, with statistically significant differences compared to Clinpro White, i.e., 272.16 11.08, and Fluorprotector, i.e., 288.26 12.64 (p = 0.0002) groups. Conclusion:According to the study's findings, the MI varnish group had the most effective enamel surface microhardness, followed by the Fluorprotector and Clinpro White Varnish groups.Clinical significance: Phases of demineralization and remineralization alternate at the tooth surface, causing dental caries.Remineralization is through which fluoride varnishes prevent cavities in teeth.The resultant enamel resists disintegration in acid.MI varnish's casein phosphopeptideamorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) technology enhances fluoride ion absorption and fluorapatite production by stabilizing and localizing calcium and phosphate at the tooth surface.