## 3 Results
### SEM Analysis Findings  
Figure 4 presents the SEM images obtained from the samples at \(\times\)10,000 magnification.  
In images of the intact enamel surface, circular enamel prisms with distinct boundaries, interprismatic enamel, and their homogeneous distribution were observed. The boundaries of the enamel prisms and the interprismatic enamel resembled the structure of the prism body, and continuity was maintained between both prismatic and interprismatic enamel (Figure 4a).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Toothpastes**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Microhardness**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **N** & **Median** & **Mean** & **Sd** & **Test Statistic** & \(p\) \\ \hline Splat\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 5.55 & 14.65 & 21.59 & X\({}^{2}\) = 6.548 & 0.164 \\ Logodent\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 6.05 & 9.18 & 8.55 & & \\ EST\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 8.80 & 15.46 & 31.83 & & \\ Naturalive\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 5.55 & 11.11 & 14.15 & & \\ Buccotherm\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 17.97 & 22.05 & 14.08 & & \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Toothpastes**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Surface roughness**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **N** & **Median** & **Mean** & **Sd** & **Test Statistic** & \(p\) \\ \hline Splat\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 16.70 & 12.06 & 22.26 & F = 0.031 & 0.998 \\ Logodent\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 11.29 & 10.46 & 20.96 & & \\ EST\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 9.46 & 12.51 & 24.18 & & \\ Naturalive\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 9.85 & 11.41 & 12.86 & & \\ Buccotherm\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 9.22 & 13.34 & 25.53 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \(\chi^{2}\): Kruskal Wallis test statistic, F: ANOVA test statistic, N: Number of samples, Sd: Standard deviation, EST: [PERSON].  
\end{table}
Table 5: Comparison of the toothpastes in terms of the difference between microhardness and surface roughness values measured after demineralization and remineralization.  
Figure 4: SEM images obtained at \(\times\)10,000 magnification: (**a**) intact enamel surface. The circular-shaped prisms are distinctly separated from the interprismatic enamel. The blue arrows show circular-shaped prism boundaries; (**b**) artificial caries formed on the enamel surface (the body material dissolved, resulting in enlarged enamel prisms); (**c**) Group 1’s (Splat) enamel surface, with pores in the prism body and surface irregularities (the blue arrows point to the pore on the enamel surface); (**d**) Group 2’s (Logodent) enamel surface (non-homogeneous, irregular accumulations (the blue arrows show the deposits)); (**e**) Group 3’s ([PERSON]) enamel surface (the blue arrow points to the filled enamel prism with a honeycomb appearance); (**f**) Group 4’s (Naturalive) enamel surface (the blue arrows show the enamel prism with a prominent honeycomb appearance.); and (**g**) Group 5’s (Buccotherm) enamel surface, with the filling showing a diffuse, cloud-like structure.  
The enamel surface with artificial caries exhibited a honeycomb appearance. The periphery of the prisms in the enamel with artificial caries remained intact, but the body material had dissolved and emptied. The prisms were enlarged, and the interprismatic enamel had decreased (Figure 4b).  
Although the honeycomb appearance of the enamel prisms and a decrease in the interprismatic enamel due to demineralization continued to be observed on the enamel surface on which the toothpastes were applied, the prism bodies were fuller compared to their demineralized condition.  
In Figure 4c, although there are fillings on the surface, the pores in the prism body and surface irregularities are noticeable.  
In Figure 4d, non-homogeneous, irregular accumulations are observed.  
In Figure 4e, the prisms with a honeycomb pattern are filled inside.  
In Figure 4f, although small filling areas are observed, the pores in the enamel prisms and the honeycomb appearance are noticeable.  
In Figure 4g, the enamel surface is regular, with fillings showing a diffuse, cloud-like structure.