{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028871391076115485, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01115485564304462, 'mean_word_length': 5.149193548387097, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effect of CPP-ACP Modified-GIC on Prevention of Demineralization in Comparison to Other Fluoride-Containing Restorative Materials.

BACKGROUND
This study evaluated the ability of a CPP-ACP-modified GIC to inhibit demineralization around the margin of cervical cavities in natural teeth in comparison with a Giomer and conventional GIC with and without coating.


METHODS
Thirty-two sound human molars were used. Box-shaped cavities were prepared along the CEJ. Teeth were randomly divided into 4 groups and restored with Equia Forte Fil, Coated Equia Forte Fil, Fuji VII EP, or Beautifil II. Teeth were subjected to pH cycling. Micromorphological and elemental analyses were done using SEM and EDX. Polarized light microscope analysis and microhardness tests were also performed.


RESULTS
Microhardness tests on enamel showed a significant difference between the coated Equia group, Equia, and Beautifil II groups (p<0.05). Dentin results showed significant differences between the coated Equia group and all other groups (p<0.05). Elemental analysis showed significant differences in calcium weight percentage among the first and second observation levels in all groups (p<0.05). A significant difference was found between the coated Equia group and the other three groups (p<0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
All tested materials showed some ability to resist demineralization at the restoration margins. The coated GIC restoration showed better outcomes compared with the other tested materials. © 2022 Australian Dental Association.