Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33491110›Full record

ArticleProgress in orthodontics2021

Comparative evaluation of fluoride varnishes, self-assembling peptide-based remineralization agent, and enamel matrix protein derivative on artificial enamel remineralization in vitro.

Yağmur Lena Sezici, Enver Yetkiner, Arzu Aykut Yetkiner, Ece Eden, Rengin Attin

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Progress in orthodontics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Enzymatic synthesis of fluorinated compounds.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yağmur Lena SeziciPrivate Practice, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1998-8955
Enver YetkinerDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7785-8011
Arzu Aykut YetkinerDepartment of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey. a_aykut@hotmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0205-470X
Ece EdenDepartment of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8427-0427
Rengin AttinClinic for Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2417-7356
Ege University · TRUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne of the most unfavorable side effects of fixed orthodontic treatment is white spot lesions (WSLs). Although the most important approach is prevention of WSLs, it is also essential to evaluate the efficacy of the remineralization agents. However, there is no concurrence in the literature with respect to the remineralization process of these agents. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effects of different fluoride varnishes, enamel matrix protein, and self-assembling peptide derivatives with varying chemical compositions on remineralization of artificially created WSLs in vitro using quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF).

methodsArtificial WSLs were created on bovine enamel samples using acidic buffer solution (pH 5, 10 days). Specimens were randomly allocated to six groups (n = 10/group): (1) Emdogain (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), (2) Curodont Repair (Credentis AG, Switzerland), (3) Duraphat (Colgate-Palmolive, New York, NY), (4) Clinpro XT (3 M ESPE, Pymble, New South Wales, Australia), (5) Enamel Pro Varnish (Premier Dental Products, PA, USA), and (6) control (untreated). The agents were applied to the WSLs according to the manufacturers' instructions. Fluorescence loss (ΔF), lesion area (area), and impact (ΔQ) values of enamel surfaces were quantified by QLF-D Biluminator

resultsΔF value presented a significantly decreasing trend throughout the 21 days for all groups except the Duraphat and Enamel Pro varnishes. The changes between 14th and 21st days of the Clinpro XT varnish application were significantly higher than Emdogain, Curodont, and Enamel Pro. The Curodont group showed higher lesion area changes between the first and second week in comparison to the Emdogain, Clinpro XT, and Enamel Pro groups, whereas Clinpro XT assured the highest reduction from the second to the third week of the observation period.

conclusionsThe fluorescence loss was significantly reduced with enamel matrix protein, self-assembling peptide, and light-curable fluoride varnishes in the analysis for 21 days. Curodont and Clinpro XT were effective in diminishing the fluorescence loss and lesion area compared to the Duraphat, Enamel Pro fluoride varnishes, and Emdogain in different time points.

Indexed as

Dental CariesFluorides, TopicalAnimalsCariostatic AgentsCattleHumansPeptidesSodium FluorideSwitzerlandTooth RemineralizationCariostatic AgentsFluorides, TopicalPeptidesSodium FluorideEnamel matrix proteinFluoride varnishLight-induced fluorescenceRemineralizationSelf-assembling peptideWhite spot lesions

Identifiers

PMID33491110
PMCPMC7829296
OpenAlexW3121502883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.