ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry : JCD
Effect of four different dentifrices applied by customized automated brushing device on enamel surface abrasion: An
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term optical and physical stability of resin composites: the role of MDP-containing adhesive as a modeling liquid.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Effect of two types of charcoal toothpaste on the enamel surface roughness of permanent teeth.Dental research journal · 2023Article
- Mitigation of peri-implantitis by rational design of bifunctional peptides with antimicrobial properties.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface abrasion using four different dentifrices and a customized automated brushing machine under a profilometer. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 30 enamel blocks (9 mm × 9 mm × 2 mm) were prepared from freshly extracted maxillary central incisors which were randomly divided into five equal groups (Group 1: specimens brushed with Colgate Total, Group 2: specimens brushed with Colgate Lemon and Salt, Group 3: specimens brushed with Colgate Visible White, Group 4: specimens brushed with Colgate Sensitive, and Group 5: intact enamel surface). Samples were brushed using a customized automated toothbrushing machine for 60 min. A profilometric read out (Ra value) was taken for each group subjected to brushing and also for the control group. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statistical analysis used in this study was one-way analysis of variance followed by
resultsStatistically significant differences (
conclusionThe highest enamel abrasion was observed in the group with Colgate Visible White toothpaste, and the least enamel abrasion was seen in the group with Colgate Sensitive Plus.
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.