Remineralisation comparison: Fluoride v/s Silica
Share
Fluoride has long dominated remineralisation discussions, but silica—especially from sources like rice husk ash (RHA) in Nanjangud Tooth Powder—offers a compelling alternative mechanism that works without systemic absorption risks. This comparison breaks down how each rebuilds enamel, highlighting speed, safety, and suitability for daily family use.
|
Sl. No. |
Parameter |
Fluoride |
Silica (from RHA) |
|
1) |
Mechanism |
Fluoride ion replaces Hydroxide group in hydroxyapatite (HA) |
Silicon dioxide from RHA forms silanol groups |
|
|
|
forms fluorapatite |
attracts calcium and phosphate from saliva; forms scaffold |
|
|
|
- |
nucleates new hydroxyapatite (HA) crystals on silica scaffold; layer-by-layer HA growth |
|
|
|
ionic substitution pathway |
biomimetic pathway |
|
2) |
Result |
more acid resistant |
more acid resistant |
|
|
|
structurally non-identical to native HA |
structurally identical to native HA |
|
|
|
alters original enamel lattice |
preserves original enamel lattice |
|
3) |
Systemic risk |
high |
low |
|
|
|
fluorosis, systemic glands' and bone calcification, diminishing IQ |
- |
|
4) |
Tissue compatability |
moderate |
high |
|
5) |
Bioaccumilation |
yes |
no |
|
6) |
Long-term use |
risky |
safe |
|
7) |
Inert |
no |
yes |
|
8) |
speed of remineralisation |
fast |
slow |