ArticleBMC oral health2024
Analysis of dentin wear and biological properties promoted by experimental inoffice desensitizing materials.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate dentin wear and biological performance of desensitizing materials.
methodsSeventy bovine root dentin blocks were sectioned. Half of the surface of each specimen was untreated (control) and the other half was immersed in EDTA and treated with the following desensitizing materials: placebo varnish (PLA), fluoride varnish (FLU), sodium fluoride (NaF) varnish + sodium trimetaphosphate (TMP), universal adhesive (SBU), S-PRG varnish (SPRG), biosilicate (BIOS), and amelotin solution (AMTN). After application, the specimens were submitted to an erosive-abrasive challenge and the wear analyzed by optical profilometer. Serial dilutions of extracts obtained from the culture medium containing discs impregnated with those desensitizers were applied on fibroblasts and odontoblasts-like cells cultures. Cytotoxicity and production of total protein (TP) by colorimetric assays were determined after 24 h. Data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn's, One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p ≤ 0.05).
resultsNo dentin wear was observed only for SBU. The lowest dentin wear was observed for AMTN and TMP. Cell viability was significantly reduced after treatment with undiluted extracts of PLA, FLU, TMP and SBU in fibroblasts and TMP and SBU in odontoblast-like cells. SPRG, BIOS and AMTN were cytocompatible at all dilutions tested. Considering TP results, no statistical difference was observed among the groups and high levels for TP were observed after TMP and FLU treatments.
conclusionsUniversal adhesive system may protect dentin with opened tubules from wear after challenge. Extracts of adhesive and fluoride varnishes presented cytotoxic mainly on fibroblasts. The enamel protein may be a future alternative to treat dentin with opened tubules because it may cause low wear under erosive-abrasive challenge with low cytotoxic effects.
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.