ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2018
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2018. 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.
- Roughness assessment of colored compomers: Results after an erosive-abrasive in vitro cycling test.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023Article
- The Impact of Simulated Gastric Acid and Toothbrushing on Surface Characteristics of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cements.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Effect of fluoride varnish on glass ionomer microhardness changes in endogenous acid erosion challenge.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2021Article
- Nickel ion release from dental alloys in two different mouthwashes.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe widespread use of mouthwashes, specially in children, is a concern, since the long-term use may modify the topography of dental materials. However, this process still unclear regarding the wear related to infant mouthwashes on glass ionomer cement. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was evaluate the erosive potential of infant mouthwashes on glass ionomer cement specimens. MATERIAL AND
methodsForty round-shaped specimens were divided into 4 groups (N=10) and submitted to erosive cycling for 15 days, being exposed 2X/day in the following children's active agents mouthwash solutions: G1- cetylpyridinium chloride, G2- xylitol and triclosan and G3 - Malva sylvestris and xylitol. Prior to cycling, the specimens were submitted to the surface roughness measurement. After erosive cycling, the specimens were reanalyzed, and calculated the increase of roughness (∆Ra). Additionally, it was adopted distilled water as a negative control (G4). As an extra analysis, the mouthwashes had their pH values measured. The results were submitted to T-test and ANOVA followed by Tukey test at 5%.
resultsIn relation to pH values, G2 presented the most acidic pH value (pH = 6.83) in comparison to other substances. Regarding the comparison of the final roughness values (R) among the groups, it was verified that the mouthwashes showed significant roughness increase in comparison to control group, especially to G3 group (Rf = 1.67 ± 0.14) as well the ΔRa values with statistical difference in comparison to distilled water. Still, with exception of control group outcome, an increase of roughness of each mouthwash was verified after the studied period.
conclusionsActive agents present in infant mouthwashes were capable of roughness increased of glass ionomer cement surface, demonstrating an erosive potential of this material largely used in pediatric dentistry.
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.