ArticlePeerJ2016
Effects of CO
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Combined CO₂ Laser Irradiation and Sodium Fluoride Varnish on Enamel Surface Morphology and Surface Elemental Composition: An In Vitro Split-Tooth Study.F1000Research · 2026Article
- Bioactive Dental Adhesive System WithFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
- The Impact of COJournal of lasers in medical sciences · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the effect of two types of laser on the growth ofLaser therapy · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA carbon dioxide (CO
methodsFor this in vitro study, 96 specimens of bovine enamel were employed, which were divided into two groups (n = 48): 1) Control-non-irradiated surface and 2) Irradiated enamel surface. Biofilms were grown on the enamel specimens by one, three and five days under intermittent cariogenic condition in the irradiated and non-irradiated surface. In each assessment time, the biofilm were evaluated by dry weigh, counting the number of viable colonies and, in fifth day, were evaluated by polysaccharides analysis, quantitative real time Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) as well as by contact angle. In addition, the morphology of biofilms was characterized by fluorescence microscopy and field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM). Initially, the assumptions of equal variances and normal distribution of errors were conferred and the results are analyzed statistically by t-test and Mann Whitney test.
resultsThe mean of log CFU/mL obtained for the one-day biofilm evaluation showed that there is statistical difference between the experimental groups. When biofilms were exposed to the CO
conclusionIn conclusion, CO
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.