ArticleBrazilian dental journal2024
Inhibition of incipient caries lesion progression by different fluoridated varnishes.
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Factors Affecting Fluoride Release from Fluoride Varnishes: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Fluoride Casein Phosphopeptide and Tri-Calcium Phosphate Treatments for Enamel Remineralization: Effects on Surface Properties and Biofilm Resistance.Dentistry journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the potential of different fluoridated varnishes to inhibit the progression of incipient caries lesions after cariogenic challenge. Seventy-five enamel specimens of bovine teeth were prepared and selected based on the initial surface microhardness (SMH). The specimens were first subjected to artificial demineralization (in buffer solution) after which SMH was re-analyzed (SM1). They were then randomly assigned to five experimental groups: 1- CONTROL (pH cycling), 2 - MI VAR (MI Varnish with RECALDENTTM - CPP-ACP), 3 - PROFL (Profluorid®), 4 - CLIN (ClinproTM White Varnish with TCP), and 5 - DUR (Duraphat®) (n=15). The varnishes were applied in a thin layer and the specimens were then subjected to pH cycling for eight days. The SMH and cross-sectional microhardness (CSMH) were then analyzed (SM2). The fluoride and calcium ion concentrations in the solution were analyzed by the indirect method and atomic absorption spectrophotometry, respectively. Data were statistically analyzed by Student's t-test, ANOVA/Tukey-Kramer, or Kruskall-Wallis/Dunn tests for individual comparisons (p˂0.05). All varnishes led to significantly higher surface and subsurface remineralization compared with the control group but did not differ from each other. The varnishes with the highest fluoride release were: PROFL and CLIN, followed by MI VAR and DUR. The varnishes with significantly higher release of calcium were: DUR, CLIN, and PROFL. In conclusion, all commercial fluoridated varnishes tested have good potential to inhibit the progression of demineralization, regardless of the ion release mechanisms.
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.