Introduction: The newer preventive approach to caries has resulted in the increased use of remineralizing agents. The remineralizing ability of green tea and black tea is under research.

Materials and methods: Two hundred premolar teeth were collected and a buccal window was exposed on the tooth sample by coating the rest of the teeth with nail varnish. The samples were artificially demineralized using Featherstone pH cycling technique. The test solutions of green tea and black tea were prepared by dissolving 2 gm of the prepared extract in 180 mL of water; 0.05% NaF solution was prepared by dissolving 5 gm of NaF in 1 L of distilled water. A total of 50 samples each were treated with the four test solutions, green tea, black tea, NaF and distilled water (control) for 4 minutes per day for 1 week. The samples were excited using diode laser and the fluores cence spectra were measured using laser-induced fluorescence spectroscopy.

Results: The highest remineralization was shown by samples treated with green tea, followed by NaF. Black tea showed lower remineralization than both green tea and NaF and the least remineralization was shown by the control, distilled water. The difference in remineralization shown by the test solutions was statistically significant except for the difference between black tea and distilled water.

Conclusion: All the three test groups, green tea, black tea, and NaF, showed remineralization. Green tea induced the highest remineralization in the tooth samples, followed by NaF. Black tea produced the least amount of remineralization. Green tea may have a potential role as a remineralizing agent for daily intake.

Keywords: Demineralization, Featherstone pH cycling, Green tea, Laser-induced fluorescence spectroscopy, Remineralization, Sodium fluoride.

How to cite this article: Babu AS, Babu A, Nair MG, Jayanthi JL, Thaha KA, George JK. Effect of Green Tea and Black Tea on Mineralization of Artificially Demineralized Human Enamel in Comparison with 0.05% Sodium Fluoride: An in vitro Study. Int J Oral Care Res 2017;5(3):361-365.

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None