Trial reportPloS one2018
Impact of a simplified in situ protocol on enamel loss after erosive challenge.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. 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.
- Influence of mandibular and palatal intraoral appliances on erosion in situ study outcome.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2019Trial
- Effect ofJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2020Article
- Eroded enamel rehardening using two intraoral appliances designs in different times of salivary exposure.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of the period of use and location of intraoral appliances on enamel surface loss. This randomized, single blind in situ study was conducted in 2 crossover phases based on the period of use, in which maxillary and mandibular appliances were simultaneously worn. Bovine enamel blocks (n = 120) were randomly divided among the studied groups by surface hardness. In each phase, fifteen volunteers used one maxillary appliance and two mandibular appliances for 5 days. Erosive challenge was performed 4X/day by immersion in 0.01 M HCL for 2 minutes. In the continuous phase, the intraoral appliances were worn for 20 hours. In the intermittent phase the appliances were worn for 8 hours and 30 minutes. Enamel loss was determined profilometrically. The discomfort of use of the appliances were evaluated in a questionnaire. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA/Tukey's test and chi-square test (p<0.05). The maxillary appliance promoted higher enamel loss compared to the mandibular one (p<0.001). Intermittent use of appliances resulted in similar enamel loss to the continuous one (p = 0.686). All volunteers preferred to use the maxillary appliance in an intermittent regimen. The intermittent use of maxillary appliance is a simplified reliable protocol appropriated for in situ erosion studies in enamel.
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.