Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36088323›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2022

Effectiveness and cytotoxicity of two desensitizing agents: a dentin permeability measurement and dentin barrier testing in vitro study.

Ruodan Jiang, Yongxiang Xu, Feilong Wang, Hong Lin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Gelatin-Modified Bioactive Glass for Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ruodan JiangDepartment of Dental Materials, Dental Medical Devices Testing Center, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 22, Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, People's Republic of China.
Yongxiang XuDepartment of Dental Materials, Dental Medical Devices Testing Center, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 22, Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, People's Republic of China.
Feilong WangDepartment of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Hong LinDepartment of Dental Materials, Dental Medical Devices Testing Center, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, No. 22, Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, People's Republic of China. honglin196@126.com.
Peking University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen evaluating the efficacy and safety of various desensitizing products in vitro, their mechanism of action and clinical utility should be considered during test model selection. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of two desensitizers, an in-office use material and an at-home use material, on dentin specimen permeability, and their dentin barrier cytotoxicity with appropriate test models.

methodsTwo materials, GLUMA desensitizer (GLU) containing glutaraldehyde and remineralizing and desensitizing gel (RD) containing sodium fluoride and fumed silica, were selected. Human dentin specimens were divided into three groups (n = 6): in groups 1 and 2, GLU was applied, and in group 3, RD was applied and immersed in artificial saliva (AS) for 24 h. Dentin specimen permeability before and after each treatment/post-treatment was measured using a hydraulic device under a pressure of 20 cm H

resultsGLU significantly reduced the dentin permeability and occluded the dentinal tubules when 2% BSA was used as perfusion fluid. RD significantly reduced dentin permeability and occluded the tubules, but permeability rebounded after AS immersion. GLU significantly decreased cell viability, but RD was non-cytotoxic.

conclusionsIn vitro GLU application induced effective dentinal tubule occlusion only following the introduction of simulated dentinal fluid. RD provided effective tubule occlusion, but its full remineralization potential was not realized after a short period of immersion in AS. GLU may harm the pulp, whereas RD is sufficiently biocompatible.

Indexed as

Dentin Desensitizing AgentsDentin SensitivityDentinDentin PermeabilityHumansMaterials TestingDentin Desensitizing AgentsDentinal fluidDentin barrier cytotoxicity testDentin permeabilityDesensitizing agentsGlutaraldehydeRemineralization

Identifiers

PMID36088323
PMCPMC9464405
OpenAlexW4295462711

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.