Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26731743›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Validation of a Cariogenic Biofilm Model to Evaluate the Effect of Fluoride on Enamel and Root Dentine Demineralization.

Constanza E Fernández, Livia M A Tenuta, Jaime A Cury

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Functionalized Mouth-Conformable Interfaces for pH Evaluation of the Oral Cavity.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Constanza E FernándezDepartment of Physiological Sciences, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Livia M A TenutaDepartment of Physiological Sciences, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Jaime A CuryDepartment of Physiological Sciences, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to gingival recession both enamel and root dentine are at risk of developing caries. Both tissues are exposed to a similar environment, however there is not a validated model to evaluate the effect of fluoride on these dental substrates simultaneously. Hence, this study aimed to validate a caries model to evaluate the effect of fluoride to prevent demineralization on enamel and root-dentine. Streptococcus mutans UA159 biofilms were formed on saliva-coated bovine enamel and root dentine slabs (n = 12 per group) mounted in the same well of culture plates. The biofilms were exposed 8×/day to 10% sucrose and treated 2×/day with fluoridated solutions containing 0, 150, 450, or 1,350 ppm F; thus, simulating the use of low to high fluoride concentration toothpastes. The pH values of the culture medium was monitored 2×/day as a biofilm acidogenicity indicator. After 96 h, biofilms were collected for fluoride concentration analysis. The percentage of surface hardness loss (%SHL) was calculated for slabs. The fluoride uptake by the enamel and dentine was also determined. The model showed a dose-response because the biofilm and fluoride uptake increased and %SHL decreased at increasing fluoride concentrations (p < 0.05). Fluoride in the biofilm formed on dentine and fluoride uptake by dentine were higher than those for enamel. With the same fluoride concentration treatment, the percentage of reduction of demineralization was lower for dentine than for enamel. In conclusion, the model was validated in terms of a dose-response effect of fluoride on enamel and root dentine. Furthermore, the findings support the clinical data, suggesting that higher fluoride concentrations are necessary to control caries of root dentine than of enamel.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiofilmsCattleDental CariesDental EnamelDentinModels, BiologicalSodium FluorideStreptococcus mutansToothTooth DemineralizationSodium Fluoride

Identifiers

PMID26731743
PMCPMC4712139
OpenAlexW2225260200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.