Data were tabulated, coded then analyzed using the computer program SPSS . In the statistical comparison between the different groups, the significance of difference was tested using one of the following tests:-
- Kruskal wallis:- Used to compare between more than two different groups of numerical (non-parametric) data followed by post-hoc Dunn’s.
- Friedman:- Used to compare between more than two related groups of numerical (non-parametric) data followed by post-hoc Dunn’s.
A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
- Mineral profile using Diagnodent
Table (1) showing Comparison of diagnodent reading between all groups.
According to the DIAGNO hygienic pen values for the CPP-ACP group , the median value at baseline was 6 (3-11)which lies between the normal readings of DIAGNOdent , while after demineralization the median was 14(11-18) indicating the formation of initial white spot lesions. After remineralization , the median was 6(4-7)which indicate the return to the normal range . regarding these results , there was a statistically significant difference between CPP-ACP and other study groups after remineralization ( p<0.05). As showed in Table (1).
In the Nano silver group , the median value at baseline was 6(3-11) in normal range , then after demineralization , it was 15(11-19), and after remineralization , it was 3(1-5) within normal range . A statistically significant difference was obtained compared to other groups as showed in Table (1).
In comparison with sodium fluoride the gold standard group , the median value at baseline was 6(3-11), then after lesion creation was 14(12-17), and after remineralization was 8(6-11) . A statistically significant difference was found compared to other groups(p<0.05). As showed in Table (1) .
Regarding the control group , the median at baseline was 6(3-11), after demineralization was 14(12-17), and after remineralization was 15(11-19).(p<0.05) . Table (1) .
The remineralizing efficiency was significant higher in (NSFgroup) , followed by (CPP-ACP group) , then (sodium fluoride group) , and finally the (control group).
Regarding the baseline stage , the median of all groups was same 6(3-11) ( p=1.0) . While in the post lesion stage the median value of CPP-ACP group was 14(11-18), in comparison to NSF group the median value was 15(11-19), compared to the NAF group 14(12-17), and in the control group it was the same 14( 12-17) (p=0.4). After remineralization treatment the mean value of CPP-ACP group was 6(4-7), while in the NSF group it was 3(1-5), compared to the NAF group it was 8(6-11) , and in the control group it was 15(11-19) (p<0.001).
Table (1) : Comparison of diagnodent reading between all groups.
|
CPP-ACP (GroupI)
|
NSF
(GroupII)
|
NAF (GroupIII)
|
control (GroupIV)
|
P
|
Baseline
|
6.0(3.0-11.0)
|
6.0(3.0-11.0)
|
6.0(3.0-11.0)
|
6.0(3.0-11.0)
|
1.0
|
Post-lesion
|
14.0(11.0-18.0)
|
15.0(11.0-19.0)
|
14.0(12.0-17.0)
|
14.0(12.0-17.0)
|
0.4
|
After remineralization
Post-hoc
|
6.0(4.0-7.0)
|
3.0(1.0-5.0)
|
8.0(6.0-11.0)
|
15.0(11.0-19.0)
|
<0.001*
|
|
P1=0.005*
|
P1=<0.001*
P2=0.017*
|
P1=<0.001*
P2=<0.001*
P3=0.003*
|
|
The test used Kruskal wallis followed by post-hoc Dunn’s
P1: significance vs CPP-ACP Group
P2: significance vs NSFGroup
P3: significance vs NAF Group
Table (2) showing change in diagnodent score in all groups :
groups.
Table (2) showed change in diagnodent reading in all groups. It was found that there was a statistically significant difference between all groups in the change of the diagnodent measurments ( difference between after remineralization reading and post lesion reading ) (p< 0.05)
|
CPP-ACP
(Group I)
|
NSF
( Group II)
|
NAF
(GroupIII)
|
Control (GroupIV)
|
P
|
Change
(after-mineralization - Post-lesion)
|
-8.5(-13.0 - -4.0)
|
-13.0(-16.0 - -6.0)
|
-6.5(-9.0 - -3.0)
|
1.0(-5.0 - 5.0)
|
<0.001*
|
Post-hoc
|
|
P1=0.01*
|
P1=<0.001*
P2=0.08
|
P1=<0.001*
P2=<0.001*
P3=0.001*
|
|
Data expressed as Median(Range)
P:Probability *:significance <0.05
Test used: Kruskal wallis followed by post-hoc Dunn’s
P1: significance vs CPP-ACP Group
P2: significance vs NSF Group
P3: significance vs NAF Group
Table( 3 ): Comparison of the aesthetic effect between all groups
Table (3) showed comparison of the aesthetic effect in all groups . It was found that there was a statistically significant difference in mean values of Spectrophotometer reading after remineralization in all study groups compared to control group ( P=0.001) , as shown in fig (2).
Variables
|
CPP-ACP Group
|
NSF Group
|
NAF Group
|
Control Group
|
ANOVA test
|
P- value
|
Baseline
|
3.00±0.59
|
2.96±0.74
|
2.99±0.74
|
2.79±0.69
|
0.19
|
0.89
|
Post-lesion
|
15.01±1.99
|
16.15±2.48
|
15.41±2.27
|
15.83±2.30
|
0.47
|
0.69
|
Post-remineralization
|
2.87±0.51
|
2.61±0.65
|
2.87±0.71
|
8.56±2.14
|
57.83
|
<0.001*
|
Post-hoc
|
|
P1=0.69
|
P1=0.99
P2=0.96
|
P1=0.001*
P2=0.001*
P3=0.001*
|
|
|
Data expressed as Mean±SD
P:Probability *:significance <0.05
Test used: One way ANOVA followed by post-hoc tukey
P1: significance vs CPP-ACPGroup
P2: significance vs NSFGroup
P3: significance vs NAF Group