Research Article

Remineralization Potential of Nanohydroxyapatite Toothpaste Compared with Tricalcium Phosphate and Fluoride Toothpaste on Artificial Carious Lesions

Table 2

Mean, standard deviation (sd), 95% confidential interval (CI) of baseline hardness (HB), hardness after artificial formation of demineralization (HD), hardness after application of pH-cycling and remineralization process (HR), hardness difference determined between after application of pH-cycling and remineralization process and after artificial formation of demineralization (Hdiff = HR − HD), percentage of hardness recovery (% HR), remineralization potential (RP), percentage of remineralization potential (% RP), and average crystal size (CS) for no treatment (NT), nanohydroxyapatite toothpaste (NHT), tricalcium phosphate toothpaste (TCPT), and fluoride toothpaste (FT) group.

GroupHBHDHRHdiff = HR − HD% HRRP% RPCS (nm)
Mean ± sd
95% CI (LL-UL)
Mean ± sd
95% CI (LL-UL)
Mean ± sd
95% CI (LL-UL)
Mean ± sd
95% CI (LL-UL)
Mean ± sd
95% CI (LL-UL)
Mean ± sd
95% CI (LL-UL)
Mean ± sd
95% CI (LL-UL)

NT362.06 ± 10.11a (356.46–367.66)147.07 ± 18.93b (136.59–157.55)73.38 ± 19.50c (62.58–84.18)−73.69 ± 17.13p(−83.18)–(−64.20)−34.78 ± 9.96n (−40.30)–(−29.27)34.80
NHT361.65 ± 9.89a (356.18–367.13)150.77 ± 22.49b (138.31–163.23)160.29 ± 18.60d (149.99–170.59)9.52 ± 6.54h (5.90–13.14)4.39 ± 2.83m (2.83–5.96)86.91 ± 13.65n (79.36–94.47)58.62 ± 11.20p (52.42–64.82)37.07
TCPT361.54 ± 9.56a (356.26–366.83)147.55 ± 21.10b (135.87–159.24)161.78 ± 21.70d (149.77–173.80)14.23 ± 8.09h (9.75–18.71)6.69 ± 3.94m (4.51–8.87)88.41 ± 12.47n (81.50–95.31)60.61 ± 8.88p (55.70–65.53)46.77
FT360.89 ± 11.01a (354.80–366.99)152.22 ± 20.31b (141.00–163.43)164.26 ± 19.44d (153.49–175.02)12.04 ± 4.74h (9.41–14.67)5.74 ± 2.09m (4.58–6.90)90.88 ± 15.49n (82.30–99.46)60.49 ± 11.66p (54.02–66.95)39.49

NB: different superscript letters in the same column represented significant different between treatment group (). LL: lower limit. UP: upper limit.