. 2022 Mar 17;12:4652. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08725-9

Table 2.

Comparison of enamel surface microhardness in experimental groups.

Group	Condition (mean ± SD)
Group	Baseline	DEM	Intervention	pH-cycling	%REMH intervention	%REMH pH-cycling
1	236.51 ± 6.52^A,a	132.78 ± 5.93^A,b	177.74 ± 5.67^c	117.69 ± 5.91^d	43.27 ± 3.57^A	− 15.04 ± 9.01^A
2	235.64 ± 3.2^A,a	131.15 ± 4.49^A,b	178.55 ± 6.64^c	133.03 ± 6.26^d	45.34 ± 4.79^A	1.76 ± 6.22^B
3	234.48 ± 4.77^A,a	130.78 ± 4.20^A,b	185.65 ± 5.23^c	118.85 ± 5.70^d	52.86 ± 4.79^B	− 11.91 ± 9.11^A
4	234.27 ± 5.57^A,a	130.35 ± 5.77^A,b	176.89 ± 6.72^c	117.71 ± 9.46^d	44.81 ± 4.25^A	− 12.38 ± 11.23^A
5	233.31 ± 5.47^A,a	130.25 ± 6.19^A,b	177.23 ± 4.56^c	129.82 ± 7.59^d	45.62 ± 3.85^A	− 0.49 ± 7.39^B
6	230.12 ± 6.83^A,a	130.12 ± 4.14^A,b	130.09 ± 3.84^c	76.08 ± 6.18^d	− 0.1 ± 5.4^C	− 54.17 ± 6.23^C
p-value	0.1689	0.8690	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001

%REMH Percentage of enamel microhardness (EMH) recovery, %REMH pH-cycling Percentage of EMH recovery after pH-cycling (n = 12), SD Standard deviation.

In each row, means with the same lowercase letter are not significantly different (within-group analysis).

In each column, means with the same capital letter are not significantly different (between-group analysis).

Statistical significance: p < 0.05.

Group 1: Phosphoric acid + Clinpro™; group 2: Phosphoric acid + Aegis®; group 3: Icon®; group 4: Hydrochloric acid + Clinpro™; group 5: Hydrochloric acid + Aegis®; group 6: Control.