ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry
Comparative Evaluation of Effect of Silver Diamine Fluoride and Glass Ionomer Cement on Microhardness of Artificial Caries Lesion in Primary Teeth: An
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Silver diamine fluoride: the science behind the action - a narrative review.BMC oral health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the remineralizing potential of glass ionomer cement (GIC) and silver diamine fluoride (SDF) on artificially induced enamel caries lesions in primary teeth. Materials and methods: The initial baseline surface microhardness (SMH) of 40 primary teeth was tested using Vickers hardness tester, followed by the creation of artificial caries lesions by immersion in the demineralizing solution. Microhardness assessments of demineralized samples were done, and samples were randomly divided into two groups of 20 specimens: in group I, GIC was applied on demineralized enamel, and in group II, SDF was applied on demineralized enamel. Samples were subjected to pH cycling. For group I, GIC from the enamel samples was carefully removed using a surgical blade, and changes in the SMH from both groups were analyzed using Vickers microhardness test. Result: Surface microhardness (SMH) value after pH cycling of GIC (45 ± 10.23) and SDF (47.76 ± 6.69) is statistically highly significant (<0.001) compared to the baseline SMH of both test groups. Comparison of SMH between the two groups showed statistically nonsignificant results. Conclusion: The remineralization potential of SDF is comparable to GIC. So, SDF can be used as a remineralizing agent for incipient enamel caries. Clinical significance: Owing to the remineralizing ability of GIC underneath the restorations, it can be used as a therapeutic sealant for incipient enamel caries lesions, where SDF staining is not always acceptable. A 38% SDF also can be used as a remineralizing agent for incipient enamel caries lesions in situations like noncompliant patients, inaccessibility to dental care, or conditions in which esthetics is not of concern. How to cite this article: Sunny S, Sargod SS, Bhat SS,
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.