Remineralization Potential of Chicken Eggshell Powder in The Treatment of Artificially Induced Enamel Carious lesion in Permanent Teeth

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to assess and compare the enamel remineralization potential of chicken eggshell powder (CESP) solution or slurry on initial enamel caries in permanent teeth. Materials and methods: 20 caries-free human premolars were used in this study. The mineral content and surface microhardness of all specimens were initially assessed using EDX and Vickers microhardness tester respectively (positive control group). The specimens were artificially demineralized for 96 hours and then reassessed directly after demineralization (negative control group). All demineralized specimens were randomly divided into two equal groups according to the remineralization regimen used : group(I) 10 specimens were immersed in CESP solution for 12 mins, while group (II) : 10 specimens were finger rubbed with CESP slurry for 2 mins. The remineralizing agent was applied twice daily for 7 successive days. After that, the specimens were reassessed for mineral content (Ca and PO 4 weight %) and surface microhardness. Finally, the pH-cycling models were used for each group followed by reassessment. The data was statistically analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). All analysis was performed with a significance level set at 5% (P≤ 0.05).. Results: There was significant decrease in both Ca and PO 4 weight % after demineralization in all specimens and then it was significantly increased after treatment with remineralizing agents as detected by EDX (p <0.001). Vickers microhardness results confirmed elemental analysis results. However, there was no statistical significant difference between the two remineralized groups. In addition, there was no statistically significantly difference in the mean Ca/P wt% between (after pH cycling models) and that of sound enamel in both groups. Also, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean Ca/P wt% between the two remineralization regimen (Gp I and Gp II) when comparing each step separately. Comparing the microhardness of enamel specimens between the four steps of the study (Sound enamel, demineralized enamel, treatment with CESP and pH cycling after treatment) revealing a statistically significant difference between 4 steps in both group I& II except for the comparison between treatment with CESP and pH cycling after treatment (3582)