ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Does surface enamel composition and characteristics vary with inter proximal enamel reduction?
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of enamel surface after interproximal reduction using different methods, with and without polishing: an in vitro study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Deciduous and Permanent Coronal Caries Using Polarizing Light Microscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the chemical composition of the proximal enamel surface and the surface characteristics subjected to different extents of interproximal reduction (IPR) in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsPremolars of orthodontic patients which were designated for extraction were subjected to .2 mm, .3 mm, and .5 mm of IPR. After 1 month, the teeth were extracted and the teeth were subjected to scanning electron microscope (SEM) and energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDX).
resultsThe SEM images of the three experimental groups (taken at magnification of 500 × and 2000 ×) showed that the enamel surfaces were irregular and rough compared to the honey comb appearance of the unstripped group. Small areas of erosion of enamel surface were seen in Group I (0.2 mm) under 2000 × magnification compared to Group IV (control) which showed typical arrangement of enamel rods in alternating orientation. The enamel surfaces of stripped and unstripped enamel contained calcium, phosphorus, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. The differences were not statistically significant and neither were the calcium phosphorous stoichiometric ratios between the four groups.
conclusionsOn analyzing the surface characteristics of enamel using SEM between the stripped and unstripped surfaces, there were irregularities and roughness seen in stripped surface whereas honey comb pattern was observed in unstripped enamel surfaces. The elements found in unstripped and stripped enamel surfaces were calcium, phosphorous, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. Although the calcium and phosphorus were high in the 0.5 mm IPR group, the difference between stripped and unstripped enamel surfaces was statistically not significant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: There have been concerns that IPR can remove the superficial mineral-rich layer making the deeper layers more susceptible to carious attack. No study has evaluated the mineral content in different layers of enamel in response to IPR in vivo and this study found no significant difference between pristine enamel and enamel subjected to IPR. The results of this study strengthen the validity of the clinical protocol employed.
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.