Surface Microhardness of Enamel Exposed to Supplemented and Unsupplemented Artificial Saliva Formulations In Vitro

Journal of Functional Biomaterials, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/jfb17100528
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This in vitro study compared enamel surface microhardness responses to sodium fluoride (NaF), tricalcium phosphate (TCP), and calcium glycerophosphate (CaGP) in an olive leaf extract-containing artificial saliva carrier and to the unsupplemented carrier. A total of 131 human premolars were randomly allocated to NaF (n = 40), TCP (n = 40), CaGP (n = 40), or carrier (n = 11). After 96 h of demineralization, specimens underwent continuous immersion for 28 days. The primary outcome was surface microhardness recovery (ΔVHN), calculated as post-treatment minus post-demineralization Vickers hardness number (VHN). Scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM–EDX) was exploratory (n = 14). Surface hardness increased in all groups. Mean ΔVHN was 105.00 ± 53.00, 138.11 ± 50.40, 102.81 ± 48.46, and 116.98 ± 39.71 for NaF, TCP, CaGP, and carrier, respectively. The TCP formulation showed greater ΔVHN than the NaF and CaGP formulations (Bonferroni-adjusted p = 0.027 and 0.009), but no supplemented formulation showed significantly greater recovery than the carrier after multiplicity correction. Supplementary analysis likewise did not demonstrate a TCP–carrier difference (adjusted p = 0.117). No corrected SEM–EDX stage contrast was significant. These results describe surface mechanical responses of specific formulations at unequal doses under prolonged laboratory exposure. They do not establish incremental benefit over the calcium/phosphate-containing carrier or superior remineralizing efficacy of TCP; complete lesion repair cannot be inferred.