Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the microhardness of demineralized enamel following different treatments (fluoride varnish, Er:YAG laser, and Er:YAG laser associated with fluoride varnish). Methods: Forty-eight enamel blocks (4 × 4 × 7 mm) were divided into six groups (n = 8): (S) Sound; (DE) Demineralized; (DED) DE + Duraphat® 5% (fluoride varnish); (DEL20) DE + Er:YAG laser (20 mJ pulse mode; 0.20 W; 10 Hz; 60 sec; 1.18 J/cm2; 11.83 W/cm2); (DEL50) DE + Er:YAG laser (50 mJ pulse mode; 0.50 W; 10 Hz; 60 sec; 2.95 J/cm2; 29.58 W/cm2); (DEL20D) DE + Er:YAG laser (20 mJ) + Duraphat 5%. The irradiation was performed at 1 mm distance from the surface using a tip (AS7066X, L-14 mm, D-1.3 mm in diameter) in water/air spray refrigeration (level 6). The enamel blocks were submitted to pH cycling (4 h into DES solution +20 h into RE solution for 8 days and the solutions were changed every day). Knoop microhardness was measured (50 g/15 sec, six readings per sample) and data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test at 5% significance. Results: After treatments, DF group showed higher microhardness values than all the groups. Also, DEL20D group showed similar results with H group according to the microhardness analysis (p < 0.05). Conclusions: It could be concluded that Duraphat 5% treatment showed better results when compared with all tested groups, however, the association of Er:YAG Laser 20 with Duraphat 5% also showed promising results.
Keywords: dental enamel; microhardness; phototherapy.