Print this page Email this page | Users Online: 167
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 74-77

Microhardness of nonfluorosed and fluorosed dental cementum: An in vitro study

Department of Periodontics, College of Dental Sciences, Davangere, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
K Vandana Laxman
Department of Periodontics, College of Dental Sciences, Room No 4, Davangere - 577 004, Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/srmjrds.srmjrds_81_16

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The literature on the effect of fluoride on dental caries is well discussed in contrast to periodontal tissues. However, a recent review has explored an epidemiological association between fluorosis and periodontal disease and also the influence of fluorosis on periodontal structures along with the comparison of influence of periodontal treatment on fluorosed and nonfluorosed teeth. There is a scarcity in literature dealing with the effect of fluorosis on biological tissues such as bone and cementum. During the progression of periodontitis, there is a possibility of mechanical (microhardness), chemical (mineral), and histologic changes in cementum. Considering the higher incidence of periodontitis in the endemic fluorosed area around Davangere, there is an opportunity to study the cemental changes due to fluorosis which would influence the initiation and progression of periodontal disease. Hence, the aim was to study the microhardness of fluorosed and nonfluorosed cementum. Materials and Methods: A total of 24 healthy nonfluorosed and fluorosed orthodontically extracted premolars were collected to assess and compare the mechanical properties (Vickers hardness tester) of fluorosed versus nonfluorosed cementum. Results: The results of this study showed that the mean hardness of the fluorosed cementum (57.7 ± 9.4) was lower than nonfluorosed (60.40 ± 6.23) cementum. Conclusion: The clinical importance of this study is that clinicians need be aware of this difference during periodontal, orthodontic, caries treatment, crown procedures, and implant therapy.

Print this article     Email this article
Next article
Previous article
Table of Contents

Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Citation Manager
Access Statistics
Reader Comments
Email Alert*
Add to My List*
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded203    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal