ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2020
The Effects of Different Anticavity Agents and Er:YAG Laser Usage on Enamel Surface Microhardness.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of Er:YAG Laser Irradiation on Preventing Enamel Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International dental journal · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Er,Cr:YSGG and 980nm diode lasers influence dentin surface volume after cariogenic challenge: in vitro study.Brazilian oral research · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the changes in physical properties and mineral content of enamel exposed to radiation after treating with remineralization agent.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
- Comparative Evaluation between Self-Assembling Peptide P11-4 and ACP CPP in Enamel Remineralization Post Er: YAG Laser Irradiation - A Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopic Study.Contemporary clinical dentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to perform an in vitro evaluation of the protective effects of anticavity agents applied to enamel, by themselves and in combination with Er:YAG. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study 150 extracted third molars were used. Measurements were made using DIAGNOdent, and samples with scores of 0-13 were included in the study. These were divided into 15 groups (n = 20). Use of the agents sodium fluoride (NaF), tricalcium phosphate (Ca3PO4), titanium tetrafluoride (TiF4), Tooth Mousse (CPP-ACP), MI Paste Plus (CPP-ACP), and NovaMin (bioactive glass), individually and then in combination with Er:YAG laser, was assessed based on their effects on microhardness values. After treatment, the groups were exposed to a demineralisation solution. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 20.0 package software.
resultsThe highest test result value was observed in the TFL (TiF4/Er:YAG laser) group. Statistically significant differences were determined among all the groups (p <0.05). When the groups in which the agents were applied alone were compared with those involving combined use of Er:YAG laser, combined use provided significantly higher microhardness values, with the exception of the TML group (Tooth Mousse/Er:YAG laser) (p <0.05).
conclusionWithin the limits of this study, the combined use of remineralisation agents and Er:YAG laser elicited better results than using the agents alone. The most effective remineralisation agent was TiF4/Er:YAG laser, which may be considered an alternative method for protecting the enamel against demineralisation.
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.