## 3 Results
### AFM Analysis Findings  
There was a statistically significant difference among the mean surface roughness values measured at the beginning, post-remineralization, and post-demineralization in the toothpastes in the intragroup comparisons (\(p<0.05\)) (Table 4). The difference was due to the surface roughness values measured after demineralization, which were higher than those measured at the beginning and after remineralization. According to the pairwise comparisons of toothpastes at each stage, there was no statistically significant difference between the toothpastes (\(p>0.05\)). There was also no statistically significant difference between the toothpastes in terms of their microhardness and surface roughness values measured after demineralization and remineralization (\(p>0.05\)) (Table 5). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Measurement Stages**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Toothpastes**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Surface Roughness**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **N** & **Median** & **Mean** & **Sd** & **F** & \(p\) \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{B} & Splat\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 32.05 & 29.04 & 12.03 & 12.991 & 0.000 * \\  & Logodent\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 29.32 & 29.20 & 13.46 & \\  & EST\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 28.69 & 30.23 & 13.68 & \\  & Naturalive\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 26.42 & 28.72 & 13.87 & \\  & Bucotherm\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 25.16 & 29.62 & 17.47 & \\  & Total & 60 & 28.24 & 29.36 & 13.74 & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{D} & Splat\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 30.97 & 41.54 & 24.71 & \\  & Logodent\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 40.93 & 41.76 & 18.99 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & EST\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 40.47 & 42.76 & 21.95 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Naturalive\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 44.72 & 40.08 & 21.27 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Bucotherm\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 39.67 & 42.90 & 18.17 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Total & 60 & 39.23 & 41.81 & 20.44 & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{R} & Splat\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 23.93 & 29.47 & 17.84 & \\  & Logodent\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 30.59 & 31.30 & 8.91 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & EST\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 27.26 & 30.24 & 16.26 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Naturalive\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 22.49 & 28.68 & 13.96 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Bucotherm\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 31.23 & 29.56 & 15.09 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Total & 60 & 29.10 & 29.85 & 14.25 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} ([PERSON]’s W = 0.982. \(p=0.605\)) F: Test statistic in repeated measures for one way ANOVA.* \(p<0.05\), N: Number of samples, Sd: Standard deviation, EST: [PERSON], B: Beginning, D: Demineralization, R: Remineralization.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of the surface roughness values of the toothpastes at the beginning, after demineralization and after remineralization. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Toothpastes**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Surface Microhardness Recovery**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **N** & **Median** & **Mean** & **Sd** & **Test Statistic** & \(p\) \\ \hline Splat\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 2.00 & 7.01 & 11.41 & \(\chi^{2}=6.677\) & 0.154 \\ \hline Logodent\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 2.62 & 4.01 & 4.48 & & \\ \hline EST\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 2.99 & 5.44 & 16.28 & & \\ \hline Naturalive\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 3.16 & 4.18 & 4.81 & & \\ \hline Bucotherm\({}^{\circledR}\) & 12 & 9.27 & 16.20 & 22.91 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \(X^{2}\): Kruskal Wallis test statistic, N: Number of samples, Sd: Standard deviation, EST: Eyup Sabri Tuncer.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of surface microhardness improvement values according to each toothpaste. The correlation analysis revealed that the remineralization potential of the toothpastes was associated with their effectiveness on surface roughness. The correlation of numerical measures from the same analysis was an expected result.