SynthesisScientific reports2022
Systematic review and meta-analysis on physical barriers to prevent root dentin demineralization.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present review systematically analyzed in vitro and in situ studies investigating physical diffusion barriers (sealants, desensitizer or adhesives) to prevent the development or the progression of root (dentin) demineralization. Three electronic databases (PubMed-Medline, CENTRAL, Ovid-EMBASE) were screened for studies from 1946 to 2022. Cross-referencing was used to identify further articles. Article selection and data abstraction were done in duplicate. Languages were not restricted. The type of outcome was not restricted, and their mean differences (MD) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. Risk of Bias was graded using Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. From 171 eligible studies, 34 were selected for full-text analysis evaluating 69 different materials, and 17 studies-still evaluating 36 different materials-were included (3 in situ and 14 in vitro). Ten studies evaluated desensitizers; 8 adhesives; and 1 infiltration. Meta-analyses were possible for all 17 studies. Meta-analyses revealed that lesion depth after no treatment was significantly higher than after the application of single-step adhesives (MD[
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.