ArticlePloS one2021
Water jet as a novel technique for enamel drilling ex vivo.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the usage of a water jet for enamel drilling ex vivo, 210 individual extracted molars without lesions or fillings were collected. Then, the specimens were drilled by a water jet or a high-speed dental drill. The cavities of 50 teeth were reconstructed digitally by micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) to measure the height and width. The cavities of 10 teeth were longitudinally incised and their surfaces were observed by scanning electronic microscopy (SEM). After the cavities were filled, 50 fillings were vertically incised. The bonding interface between tooth and filling was observed by SEM. 50 teeth with fillings were stained in 0.1% rhodamine B solution, and then the dye penetration between tooth and filling was observed under the stereomicroscope and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). The bonding strength between enamel and filling of 50 teeth was simulated and predicted with finite element analysis (FEA). At 140-150 MPa and for 2-3 s, cavities were made with a depth of approximately 764 μm in each tooth. SEM showed the cavity surface in the water jet group had a more irregular concave and convex structure than that in the high-speed dental drill group. There was a trend that the microleakage and bonding width was smaller in the water jet group than in the high-speed dental drill group. FEA indicated that the stress on the resin surface was greater than on the enamel surface in the water jet group. Compared with the tooth drilled by a high-speed dental drill, the tooth drilled by a water jet gained better retention of the filling material and suffered less bonding strength on the enamel surface. Water jet drilling is effective for enamel drilling.
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.