Aim: This study aimed to assess the microhardness of the enamel surface after fluoride varnish application.
Materials and methods: Thymol of 0.1% in distilled water was used to store the collected healthy sixty teeth. The samples were divided into three groups randomly as per the different applica -tion of fluoride varnish. Group A: Fluor protector varnish (FIV) application, group B: Duraphat varnish application and group C: Bifluorid 10 varnish application. The present study followed the pH cycling protocol. Microhardness tester was used to test the microhardness of enamel surface and was expressed as micro-hardness measurements of Vickers hardness number (VHN) which was performed at baseline, on the 3rd day andon 7th day.
Results: At baseline, group A samples mean SMH value was 230.64 ± 12.32 which was slightly more than group B with 229.45 ± 10.22 and group C with 230.10 ± 11.45. There was no significant difference showed with the analysis of variance between the groups. On the 3rd day, there was a slight increase in the mean SMH in group A with 235.39 ± 6.44 and no significant difference between the groups was seen statistically. On the 7th day, the group A showed high SMH value of 262.20 ± 4.89 compared to other groups which didn't show a significantly high statistical difference.
Conclusion: On conclusion, post-application of fluorprotector varnish showed higher enamel surface microhardness compared to Duraphat and Bifluorid 10 varnishes.
Clinical significance: In young children, fluoride varnishes are effectively used as a noninvasive, anti-caries agent in the treatment of initial caries. Therefore, in routine dental practice, the knowledge about different fluoride varnishes is of importance.
Keywords: Demineralization; Fluoride varnish; Remineralization Surface microhardness..