ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2020
Effect of Duodenogastric Reflux on Dental Enamel.
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 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the effectiveness of different remineralization agents on primary and permanent teeth exposed to acidic liquids: a randomized controlled in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Assessment of the risk factors of duodenogastric reflux in relation to different dietary habits in a Chinese population of the Zhangjiakou area.Food & nutrition research · 2023Article
- Tooth Wear and Tribological Investigations in Dentistry.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2022Review
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
purposeTo evaluate the effects of stomach and duodenal fluid on enamel surfaces, simulating the action of refluxed liquid in patients with duodenogastric reflux. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty bovine incisors were used to obtain enamel fragments. Only half of the enamel surface was exposed to erosive challenges; the samples were then randomly divided into the following four groups (n = 10): G1: HCl; G2: HCl + pepsin; G3: HCl + ox bile + NaHCO3; and G4: HCl + pancreatin + NaHCO3. The specimens were placed in 37°C solutions, six times per day, for 20 s, over a period of 5 days and then analysed for morphology, surface roughness and the step formed on the dental enamel using confocal laser microscopy. The data were analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's test (p <0.05).
resultsBoth analyses revealed a higher step and surface roughness for the G3 group (5.6 μm ± 1.69, 2.2 μm ± 1.61), which were statistically significant compared with the G1 and G2 groups (3.9 μm ± 1.5 μm; 1.0 μm ± 0.18; 3.7 μm ± 1.45; and 0.9 μm ± 0.12) (p <0.05); only the step in the G4 group (4.9 μm ± 1.8 μm) was similar to that of the G3 group (p >0.05). Morphological analysis showed greater structural loss in the G3 and G4 groups.
conclusionsBile and pancreatin, in combination with hydrochloric acid, may promote a greater loss of structure, increased surface roughness and loss of enamel prismatic anatomy.
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.