ArticleBrazilian dental journal
Fluorotic Enamel Susceptibility to Dental Erosion and Fluoride Treatment.
Article in Brazilian dental journal. 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, 0 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this in vitro study was to test the hypothesis that fluoride treatment can prevent dental erosion on fluorotic enamel of different severities. It followed a 3×2 factorial design, considering a) fluorosis severity: sound (TF0, Thylstrup-Fejerskov Index), mild (TF1-2), moderate (TF3-4); and b) fluoride treatment: 0 (negative control) and 1150ppmF. Human molars with the three fluorosis severities (n=16, each) were selected and randomly assigned to the two fluoride treatments (n=8). Enamel blocks (4×4mm) were prepared from each tooth and subjected to a dental erosion cycling model, for 10 days. The daily cycling protocol consisted of erosive challenges (1% citric acid, pH 2.4), interspersed by periods of immersion in artificial saliva, and three 2-minute treatments with either 0 or 1150ppm F. The enamel volume loss (mm3) was calculated by subtracting values obtained by microtomography before and after cycling. Two-Way ANOVA showed no significant interaction between fluorosis severity and fluoride treatment (p=0.691), and no significant effect for either fluorosis severity (TF0 mean±standard-deviation: 13.5(10-2±0.42(10-2, TF1-2: 1.50(10-2±0.52(10-2, TF3-4: 1.24(10-2±0.52(10-2, p=0.416) or treatment (0ppmF: 1.49(10-2±0.53(10-2; 1150ppmF: 1.21(10-2±0.42(10-2; p=0.093), when evaluated independently. Considering the limitations of this in vitro study, the presence and severity of fluorosis in enamel do not appear to affect its susceptibility to dental erosion. Fluoride treatment was not effective in preventing the development of dental erosion in both sound and fluorotic enamel substrates under our experimental conditions.
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.