ArticleInterface focus2016
Dental abrasion as a cutting process.
Article in Interface focus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Introspection of the Etiopathological Mechanisms Underlying Noncarious Cervical Lesions: Analysis of the Different Theories and Their Impact on the Mineralized Structures of the Tooth.International journal of dentistry · 2023Review
- Mechanical compensation in the evolution of the early hominin feeding apparatus.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Polyphenols in Dental Applications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Fracture mechanics, enamel thickness and the evolution of molar form in hominins.Biology letters · 2020Article
- Neutron scanning reveals unexpected complexity in the enamel thickness of an herbivorous Jurassic reptile.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2018Article
- Evidence that metallic proxies are unsuitable for assessing the mechanics of microwear formation and a new theory of the meaning of microwear.Royal Society open science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A mammalian tooth is abraded when a sliding contact between a particle and the tooth surface leads to an immediate loss of tooth tissue. Over time, these contacts can lead to wear serious enough to impair the oral processing of food. Both anatomical and physiological mechanisms have evolved in mammals to try to prevent wear, indicating its evolutionary importance, but it is still an established survival threat. Here we consider that many wear marks result from a cutting action whereby the contacting tip(s) of such wear particles acts akin to a tool tip. Recent theoretical developments show that it is possible to estimate the toughness of abraded materials via cutting tests. Here, we report experiments intended to establish the wear resistance of enamel in terms of its toughness and how friction varies. Imaging via atomic force microscopy (AFM) was used to assess the damage involved. Damage ranged from pure plastic deformation to fracture with and without lateral microcracks. Grooves cut with a Berkovich diamond were the most consistent, suggesting that the toughness of enamel in cutting is 244 J m(-2), which is very high. Friction was higher in the presence of a polyphenolic compound, indicating that this could increase wear potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.