Comparative Evaluation of Remineralizing Potential of Three Pediatric Dentifrices

INTRODUCTION Dentifrices are available in different formulations and more commonly a single dentifrice is used by whole family; be it an adult or child. However, concerns over high fluoride in pediatric formulations coupled with inability of the children to spit have led to recommendations to minimize fluoride ingestion during toothbrushing by using a small amount of toothpaste by children and incorporating minimal quantity of fluoride in the toothpastes. Literature is scarce on the remineralization potential of popularly known Indian pediatric dentifrices; hence, pediatric dentifrices containing lesser concentration of fluoride have been marketed relatively recently for the benefit of children without posing a threat of chronic fluoride toxicity at the same time. AIM AND OBJECTIVES The present study was undertaken to evaluate and compare the remineralization potential of three commercially available Indian pediatric dentifrices with different compositions on artificially induced carious lesions in vitro through scanning electron microscopy (SEM). MATERIALS AND METHODS The present in vitro study was conducted on 45 sound extracted primary molar surfaces divided into three groups (15 each). Artificial demineralization was carried out, followed by remineralization using dentifrice slurry as per the group allocation. All the samples were studied for remineralization using SEM and the results statistically compared. RESULTS All three dentifrices tested showed remineralization; although insignificantly different from each other but significantly higher compared to the demineralizing surface. CONCLUSION One can use pediatric dentifrices for preventing dental caries and decelerating lesion progression with an added advantage of lower fluoride toxicity risk. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE Kapoor A, Indushekar KR, Saraf BG, Sheoran N, Sardana D. Comparative Evaluation of Remineralizing Potential of Three Pediatric Dentifrices. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(3):186-191.