ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
In situ evaluation of desensitizing toothpastes for protecting against erosive tooth wear and its characterization.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. 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.
- Assessment of dentinal fluid flow reduction following simulated brushing with desensitizing toothpastes using sub-nanoliter fluid flow measurement system.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- The Impact of Toothbrushing on Oral Health, Gingival Recession, and Tooth Wear-A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Topical Agents for Nonrestorative Management of Dental Erosion: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis five-phase, single-blind, crossover in situ trial evaluated the effects of desensitizing or anti-erosive toothpastes on dentin erosive wear and tubule occlusion. MATERIALS AND
methodsSome characteristics such as relative dentin abrasivity (RDA), viscosity (V), cytotoxicity, and fluoride and calcium (Ca) availability of the toothpastes were also tested. Samples were positioned on removable intraoral appliances from 15 volunteers (n=4), according to the groups, C-control (0 ppm fluoride), F-sodium monofluorophosphate (MFP), A-MFP and arginine+calcium carbonate, CSP-calcium sodium phosphosilicate, and CS-MFP and calcium silicate+sodium phosphate. Erosion-abrasion cycling was performed (1% citric acid, 2min, 6×/day; toothbrushing, 5s, 2×/day). Surface loss (SL) was evaluated by optical profilometry. Environmental scanning electron microscopy images (ESEM) counted the number of open dentin tubules (ODTs). Data were statistically analyzed (α=0.05).
resultsThere were no significant differences in SL among groups (p=0.468). The ODT for CSP, CS, and A groups were significantly lower than the control. CSP and CS presented significantly less ODT than F, but they did not significantly differ from A. F and CS were more abrasive than all the other toothpastes; CSP was more abrasive than A, and C was the least abrasive. CSP presented higher V (p<0.05). All toothpastes presented lower cell viability than the control without toothpaste exposure. F and A presented significantly higher values of F
conclusionAlthough the toothpastes caused similar degree of erosive wear, CSP and CS were able to occlude the dentin tubules. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Desensitizing toothpastes containing calcium, sodium, phosphate, and silicate could be a suitable option for treating dentin hypersensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33977386What 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.