ArticleBiomedicines2024
Comparative Evaluation of Dental Enamel Microhardness Following Various Methods of Interproximal Reduction: A Vickers Hardness Tester Investigation.
Article in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synergistic effects of fish scale-derived nanohydroxyapatite and arginine on enamel surface recovery: a multi-modal in vitro analysis.Odontology · 2026Article
- In Vitro Evaluation of Manual, Electric, and Sonic Toothbrushing on Composite Restoration Surface Properties and Retention in Primary Teeth.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Advances in Dental Restorations: A Comprehensive Review of Machinable and 3D-Printed Ceramic-Reinforced Composites.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interproximal enamel reduction, also known as stripping, is a common orthodontic procedure that reduces the mesiodistal diameter of teeth, allowing for a balance of available space in dental arches. The aim of this study was to assess the enamel surface microhardness resulting from the application of currently available methods for interproximal reduction. Forty-two extracted human permanent teeth were divided into six different groups, each subjected to a therapeutic stripping procedure using various methods (i.e., diamond burs, abrasive strips of 90 μm, 60 μm, 40 μm, and 15 μm, and abrasive discs). Stripping was performed by a single individual in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations for the various systems used. One of the proximal faces of the tooth underwent IPR, while the other side remained untreated for control. The hardness of the enamel surface was measured using a Vickers hardness tester. The control group achieved the hardest enamel surface (354.4 ± 41.02 HV1), while the lowest was observed for enamel surfaces treated with 90 µm abrasive strips (213.7 ± 118.6). The only statistically significant difference was identified in comparisons between the values measured for the control group and those obtained after stripping with diamond burs (
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.