Table 2.
Summary of effect of bioactive glass on enamel mineral content.
| Author (Year) | Methods | Main Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Palaniswamy et al. (2015) [19] | Demineralized enamel was treated with ACP-CPP and BAG, followed by microhardness test. BAG and ACP-CPP were applied on samples for 10 days in the first remineralization cycle and applied for another 5 days in the second remineralizing cycle. | Microhardness of dentine treated with ACP-CPP and BAG both increased but showed no significant difference between the 1st and 2nd remineralization cycles (BAG after 10 days: 346 ± 45; BAG after 15 days: 363 ± 65). |
| Rajan et al. (2015) [20] | Demineralized teeth were allocated into five groups as follows: fluoridated toothpaste, CPP-ACPF, ReminPro, SHY-NM and control group. Micro-CT was used to measure lesion depth. | Lesion depth after remineralization in SHY-NM group showed the least mean score of 987 µm compared to other groups. |
| Soares et al. (2017) [21] | Enamel samples with artificial lesions were treated with CPP-ACP, BAG, ReminPro, and self-assembling peptide. The recovery rate of microhardness was assessed. | Microhardness recovery rate of enamel treated with peptide was the highest (62.1%), followed by CPP-ACPF (48.4%) and BAG group (28.8%). |
| Prabhakar et al. (2009) [22] | Teeth with artificial carious lesions were divided into 2 experimental groups (sodium fluoride films, bioactive glass films) and 2 control groups (control films placed interproximally and no treatment group). | Percentages of regain of lesion depth after remineralization in BAG were more in the experimental groups (NaF films: 67.7% ± 3.8%; and BAG films: 73.0% ± 3.0%) than those in the control groups (control film: 21.1% ± 3.3%; and no treatment: 30.7% ± 2.5%). |
| Chinelatti et al. (2017) [23] | Artificial caries lesions were formed on enamel fragments and either treated with Biosilicate or acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF), or had no treatment (control), followed by microhardness test. | Biosilicate group had higher microhardness on enamel surface (265 ± 10 KHN) than APF and control group. CLSM also displayed shallower lesions in Biosilicate group when compared to APF and control group. |
| Milly et al. (2013) [24] | Enamel samples with artificial WSLs were assigned to 4 groups: BAG slurry, PAA-BAG slurry, remin solution, and deionized water; the surface and cross-sectional microhardness of enamel was assessed. | BAG group illustrated the highest surface microhardness (138 ± 5 KHN), but there were no significant differences among the other groups. |
| Bakry et al. (2014) [25] | Demineralized enamel specimens were divided into 4 groups: (1) no intervention, (2) only bioglass, (3) only brushing abrasion challenge, and (4) bioglass + brushing abrasion. After demineralizing and application of bioglass, all specimens were stored in remineralizing medium for 24 h, followed by removing the thin layer of bonding agent on bioglass in Groups 2 and 4, and then Groups 3 and 4 were sent to brushing abrasion challenge. | Hydroxyapatite was detected using XRD on the surface of enamel in Group 2 and Group 4 and these two groups also exhibited 100% coverage of crystalline structures on enamel surface. |
| Zhang et al. (2018) [26] | Artificial enamel WSLs were assigned to BG slurry, BG+PAA, CS-BG, CS-BG+PAA, remin solution, and deionized water groups. Microhardness was assessed and the intensity of surface mineral content was measured by Raman intensity mapping. | Intensity increase in BG group was significantly greater when compared to those without BG. CS-BG+PAA group showed the highest microhardness (222 ± 38 KHN) of enamel surface. Other groups with BG also exhibited higher microhardness than the control group. |
| Narayana et al. (2014) [27] | Enamels with artificial carious lesions were treated with bioactive glass, fluoride toothpaste, CPP-ACP, or CPP-ACPF and the control had no treatment. EDS was used to test the weight change of different elements. | BAG group showed significant difference when compared with control group for elements Ca and P. The mean weight percentage of Ca was 40.0% (BAG) and 31.1% (control), while the percentage of P was 14.0% (BAG) and 13.2% (control). |
| Mehta et al. (2014) [28] | Enamel specimens were randomly distributed into two groups: BAG and CPP-ACP dentifrice. Vickers microhardness test was used. | Mean microhardness values were 372 VHN in BAG group and 357 VHN in CPP-ACP group afterremineralization, but the difference was not significant. |
| EI-Wassefy et al. (2016) [29] | Demineralized enamels were treated with no treatment, fluoride varnish, cold plasma, bioglass paste, cold plasma + bioglass paste. Microhardness was assessed by Vickers hardness tester. | Microhardness of enamel surface become higher in PB groups (175 VHN and 221 VHN) when compared with bioglass groups (153 VHN and 201 VHN) at 30 and 50 µm depth, but with no significant difference between the two groups at 70–200 µm depth. |
| Zhang et al. (2019) [30] | Enamel slabs with artificial WSL were assigned into 4 groups: bioglass (chitosan pre-treated lesions), chitosan-bioglass slurry, remin solution (PC), and deionized water (NC). Subsurface microhardness was assessed. | Mean hardness of bioglass group and chitosan–bioglass group were 56.7 ± 8.7 and 65.1 ± 8.9 KHN, which were significantly higher than those of NC group (12.7 ± 1.3 KHN) and PC group (18.6 ± 5.8 KHN). |
CPP-ACP, calcium phosphate–casein phosphopeptide; SHY-NM: name of a bioactive glass; HA, hydroxyapatite; PAA-BAG, bioactive glass containing polyacrylic acid; WSL, white spot lesions; EDS: energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy; CLSM, confocal laser scanning microscopy analysis; APF, acidulated phosphate fluoride; XRD, X-ray diffraction.