ArticleClinical oral investigations2016
Efficacy of four preventive measures against enamel demineralization at the bracket periphery-comparison of microhardness and confocal laser microscopy analysis.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced remineralization and acid resistance of white spot lesions by combined bioactive glass and resin infiltration: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- The effect of nanohydroxyapatite serum and toothpaste on prevention of enamel demineralization around orthodontic brackets: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Influence of enamel sealing with a light-cured filled sealant before bracket bonding on the bond failure rate during fixed orthodontic therapy.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this in-vitro study was to investigate the efficacy of four preventive measures against enamel demineralization and to compare the suitability of microhardness (MH) measurements and confocal laser microscopy (CLSM). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 80 teeth were randomly allocated into four groups. The effect against demineralization of two coating materials (group 1: resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) cement varnish (ClinproXT); group 2: composite sealant (ProSeal)) and that of two types of bracket-bonding material (group 3: amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP) composite (AegisOrtho); group 4: RMGI (FujiOrthoLC)) was compared after pH-cycling by MH and CLSM. Measurements were made at the edge of the coating/bracket as well as at 50, 100, 200, and 400 μm distance. The data were converted into values of mineralization (Vol%) and analyzed by parametric (ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc) or non-parametric (Kruskal-Wallis and Games-Howell post hoc) tests.
resultsClinproXT and ProSeal were proved to protect the bracket periphery. However, the area next to them showed demineralizations. The mean area of lesion (CLSM-data) was significantly different between the groups (p < 0.0001). The smallest lesions were revealed for the RMGI-based materials. MH identified only for group 4 a significant difference between the area next to the bracket base and that at 200 and 400 µm distance.
conclusionThere was nearly no lesion under both coatings. A stagnation of demineralization was identified particularly for the RMGI. ProSeal showed an inferior protection of the untreated enamel. MH and CLSM analysis were suitable to detect subsurface lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A diverse efficacy of materials against enamel demineralization at bracket periphery has to be noticed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26443709What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.