ArticleBMC oral health2018
Performance of a bioglass-based dentine desensitizer under lactid acid exposition: an in-vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDentine hypersensitivity is especially frequent in patients with pronounced periodontal attachment loss. Aim of the treatment is an obstruction of the dentine tubules in order to inhibit liquid or osmotic motion, which is considered as trigger for pain sensations. Novel approaches aim for obstruction by calcium phosphate compounds in order to rely on biocompatible compounds. It was the aim of the study to optically investigate the morphology and to assess the fluid permeability of treated dentine surfaces.
methodsDentine discs were pretreated in an ultrasonic bath with 17% EDTA to clean the lumina of the dentine tubules. Samples of group A remained untreated while Seal&Protect® as a conventional desensitizer was applied for group B and DentinoCer in group C. Discs were mounted into a pulp fluid simulator (PFS) with a methylene blue solution in order to create a flow pressure of 0.5 bar. Over 12 d, discs were exposed three times per day to 0.1 M nonsaturated lactic acid. At baseline and after 2, 8 and 12 d samples were removed from PFS and prepared for SEM analysis. Tubule obstruction was assessed quantitatively using Olley scores and by qualitative description of the surface. Absorption spectrometry was used to assess the concentration of leaked methylene blue outside the samples in order to estimate dentine permeability.
resultsUntreated discs showed clean lumina of all tubules at all time points and magnifications. From day 2 onwards dentine showed exposed collagene fibers due to acid exposition. Seal&Protect® initially showed homogenous dentine surface coverage that got a more granulomatous aspect in the course of treatment time. Few samples showed sporadic tubules with open lumen at day 8 and 12. Group C showed samples with a homogeneous, even surface. Narrow slits in the superficial layer are visible from day 4 on, but the dentine surface remained invisible and dentine tubules were closed till the end of the investigation period.
conclusionOver 12 d of lactid acid exposure, samples showed complete coverage of the dentine tubules in the chosen in-vitro-model when treated with Seal&Protect® or DentinoCer.
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.