ArticleJournal of medicine and life
The effect of mouthwashes on fluoride dentifrices in preventing dental abrasion or erosion.
Article in Journal of medicine and life. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Revisiting the Therapeutic Effects of Essential Oils on the Oral Microbiome.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Erosive tooth wear (ETW) refers to the chemical dissolution of mineralized tissues by acids of non-bacterial origin. It occurs in the primary as well as the permanent dentition. In this study, our objectives were to investigate and compare the impact of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), essential oils (EO), and cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) on ETW protection produced by conventional fluoride kinds of toothpaste. A clinically relevant in-vitro erosion/abrasion pH cycling model was employed to test the effect of the aforementioned mouthwashes on modulating the ability of NaF and SnF2 types of toothpaste. The mean dentin surface loss associated with NaF toothpaste was significantly lower than for the SnF2 toothpaste. On the other hand, enamel surface loss with SnF2 toothpaste was significantly lower than for the NaF toothpaste. Also, the surface loss of erosion was significantly higher when associated with abrasion than without brushing and for both enamel and dentin. There was no significant difference in the surface loss among all types of mouthwash. Commonly used types of mouthwash containing antimicrobial agents or additional fluoride do not impact fluoride toothpaste action on erosion/abrasion. Also, considering erosion only, the tested SnF2 dentifrice provided better protection against surface loss of enamel than the other.
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.