ArticlePeerJ2022
Comparative assessment of enamel remineralisation on the surface microhardness of demineralized enamel - an
Article in PeerJ, 2022. 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.
- Assessment of the Remineralizing Potential of Biomimetic Materials on Early Artificial Caries Lesions after 28 Days: An In Vitro Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The main objective of the study was to compare two different remineralising materials containing casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate, bioactive glass on enamel surface microhardness. Materials and Methods: Thirty premolars were used for specimen preparation. Group 1 (the control group) consisted of intact enamel samples, group 2: CPP-ACPF (Tooth Mousse Plus), group 3: bioenamel remineralising gel (Prevest DenPro). All specimens were subjected to demineralisation except the control group, followed by which remineralising agents were applied. A universal hardness tester was used to assess the surface microhardness of all samples. Results were analysed using one-way ANOVA test and comparison was analysed using Scheffe's Results: Both remineralising agents used in groups 2 and 3 have shown significant outcome in terms of improving the surface microhardness in comparison with the control group. Group 2 increased the enamel hardness by 8.34 where Conclusion: Group 2 has a superior hardness value than group 3; however, no statistically significant results were obtained between both the groups.
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.