The Effectiveness of the Self-Assembling Peptide P11-4 in the Remineralization of Enamel Carious White Spot Lesions

The primary outcome measure is the change in fluorescence loss of white spot lesions from baseline to the 12-month follow-up, assessed using quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF). Fluorescence loss will be measured using the QLF parameter ΔF and expressed as percentage fluorescence loss (%). More negative ΔF values indicate greater mineral loss. The change will be calculated as the ΔF value at 12 months minus the ΔF value at baseline. A positive change in ΔF from baseline, indicating an increase in ΔF toward zero, will indicate lesion remineralization. A negative change in ΔF from baseline will indicate lesion demineralization.

The primary outcome measure is the change in QLF lesion volume (ΔQ) from baseline to the 12-month follow-up. ΔQ will be assessed using quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) and expressed as % × mm². The change will be calculated as the ΔQ value at 12 months minus the ΔQ value at baseline. More negative ΔQ values indicate larger or more severe lesions. Therefore, a positive change in ΔQ from baseline indicates lesion improvement, whereas a negative change in ΔQ from baseline indicates lesion progression.

Fluorescence loss will be assessed using the QLF parameter ΔF and expressed as percentage fluorescence loss (%). More negative ΔF values indicate greater mineral loss. The change will be calculated as the ΔF value at each follow-up visit minus the ΔF value at baseline. A positive change in ΔF from baseline, indicating an increase in ΔF toward zero, will indicate lesion remineralization. A negative change in ΔF from baseline will indicate lesion demineralization.

Lesion area will be assessed using quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) and expressed in square millimeters (mm²). The change will be calculated as the lesion area at each follow-up visit minus the lesion area at baseline. A decrease in lesion area from baseline indicates lesion improvement, whereas an increase in lesion area from baseline indicates lesion progression.

Lesion volume will be assessed using the QLF parameter ΔQ and expressed as % × mm². More negative ΔQ values indicate larger or more severe lesions. An increase in ΔQ toward zero, or a positive change in ΔQ from baseline, will indicate lesion improvement. A decrease in ΔQ, or a negative change in ΔQ from baseline, will indicate lesion progression.

Caries lesion severity will be assessed using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System II (ICDAS II). The ICDAS II score ranges from 0 to 6, where 0 indicates a sound tooth surface and 6 indicates an extensive distinct cavity with visible dentin. Higher scores indicate greater caries lesion severity.

Lesion activity will be assessed using the ICDAS-Lesion Activity Assessment (ICDAS-LAA) criteria. The ICDAS-LAA score is calculated by summing points assigned for clinical parameters including visual appearance, gingival inflammation with plaque stagnation, and surface texture. The total score ranges from 4 to 11 points, with scores ≤7 indicating inactive caries and scores >7 indicating active caries. Higher scores indicate greater lesion activity.

Lesion activity will be assessed using the Nyvad Lesion Activity Assessment (LAA) criteria. Each lesion will be classified into one of the following categories: 0 = sound surface, 1 = active caries with intact surface, 2 = active caries with surface discontinuity, 3 = active caries with cavity, 4 = inactive caries with intact surface, 5 = inactive caries with surface discontinuity, 6 = inactive caries with cavity, 7 = filling with sound surface, 8 = filling with active caries, and 9 = filling with inactive caries. Results will be reported as the number of lesions in each category. Higher category numbers do not necessarily indicate a better or worse outcome, as the categories represent lesion/restoration status and caries activity.

Dental plaque accumulation will be assessed using the Plaque Index (PLI). The PLI is scored from 0 to 3, where 0 indicates no plaque and 3 indicates abundant soft deposits. The mean PLI score will be calculated for each participant based on four surfaces per tooth. Higher scores indicate greater plaque accumulation.

Gingival inflammation will be assessed using the Gingival Index (GI). The GI is scored from 0 to 3, where 0 indicates normal gingiva and 3 indicates severe inflammation. The mean GI score will be calculated for each participant based on four surfaces per tooth. Higher scores indicate worse gingival inflammation. The results will be interpreted as follows: 0 = healthy gingiva, 0.1-1.0 = mild inflammation, 1.1-2.0 = moderate inflammation, and 2.1-3.0 = severe inflammation.

Gingival status will be assessed using Bleeding on Probing (BOP). BOP will be expressed as the percentage of sites with bleeding on probing. Gingival status will be categorized as healthy/no gingivitis when BOP is <10%, localized gingivitis when BOP is 10-30%, and generalized gingivitis when BOP is >30%.The BOP percentage (BOP%) will be calculated as: BOP% = (Number of bleeding sites ÷ Total number of sites examined) × 100

Patient-reported tolerability will be assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale. The scale ranges from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating worse tolerability.

Occurrence of adverse events (AEs) recorded throughout the study period. Adverse events will be reported as the number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event.