4.6 Article

Biomimetic hydroxyapatite paste for molar-incisor hypomineralization: A randomized clinical trial

期刊

ORAL DISEASES
卷 29, 期 7, 页码 2789-2798

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/odi.14388

关键词

biomimetic hydroxyapatite; demineralization; enamel; molar-incisor hypomineralization; paste; randomized clinical trial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the desensitizing and remineralizing effect of a new zinc-hydroxyapatite-based paste in patients with molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH). The results showed that this paste effectively reduced sensitivity and had a positive impact on the treatment of MIH.
Objectives The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the desensitizing and remineralizing effect of a new zinc-hydroxyapatite-based paste in sites affected by molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH), by assessing dental sensitivity, tooth wear, and periodontal indexes. Materials and Methods Twenty-five patients with presence of 1 enamel demineralization of permanent molars and incisors in two different quadrants were recruited. After professional dental hygiene, a domiciliary hydroxyapatite-based paste was assigned and recommended to be applied on 2 MIH teeth in one random quadrant (test group), while the 2 contralateral MIH teeth did not undergo paste application (control group). The following primary outcomes were assessed: Plaque Control Record (PCR), Bleeding Index (BI), MIH Treatment Need Index (MIH-TNI), and Schiff Air Index (SAI). Results No significant inter- and intragroup differences were found for PI and BI, except for both intragroup T0-T1. For MIH-TNI, significant intergroup differences were detectable in the test group after 9 months of treatment. For SAI values, no significant differences were found in the control group, while in the test group, significant lower values were found after 1 and 3 months since baseline, respectively. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance Biomimetic zinc-hydroxyapatite showed a desensitizing effect when used to treat MIH.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据