ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2021
A Comparison between Two Different Remineralizing Agents against White Spot Lesions: An
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enamel demineralization and white-spot lesions (WSLs) around the orthodontic brackets are common clinical complications after orthodontic fixed appliance therapy. WSLs form mainly due to plaque deposition around the brackets during the orthodontic treatment period. This study was designed to compare and evaluate the efficacy of two different remineralization agents on WSLs, which are "Clinpro 5000 and Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief". 27 caries-free human premolar teeth were collected after extraction for orthodontic purposes. The crowns were set in acrylic resin, and the entire surfaces were coated with nail varnish apart from an area of 4 × 4 mm on the buccal surface. The surface microhardness (SMH) was measured using the Vickers microhardness testing machine at baseline, after demineralization, and after treatment. Then, the different SMH values were statistically analyzed using mixed-effects linear regression. All samples were immersed in demineralizing solution for ten days to create WSLs, and then the teeth were allocated randomly into one of the three groups: Group 1 (control group-immersed in artificial saliva), Group 2 (treated with Colgate sensitive Pro-Relief toothpaste), and Group 3 (Clinpro 5000 toothpaste). Cycles of treatment were done for 5 minutes every 12 hours for 14 days. The samples were stored in freshly prepared artificial saliva between cycles. The mixed-effects model was used to quantify the effect of different remineralization agents. All statistics were computed using STATA software (version14.1; Stata, College Station, TX). All statistical tests were two-tailed and interpreted at the 0.05 significance level. Both agents improved the surface hardness. Clinpro 5000 improved the surface hardness by 12.7 (
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.