ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Four Distinct Remineralizing Agents in Artificial White Spot Lesions Following Chitosan Nanoparticle Pretreatment: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of chitosan nanoparticle pretreatment with four different remineralizing agents in artificial white spot lesions. Methods A total of 100 human maxillary first premolars were selected and divided into five groups of 20 samples in each group. Artificial white spot lesions were created by immersing the samples in the demineralizing solution for 96 hours. Chitosan pretreatment was done for all samples followed by subjecting Group I samples to artificial saliva (control), Group II samples to 3M Clinpro, Group III samples to GC Tooth Mousse, Group IV samples to SHY-NM, and Group V samples with Aclaim using a cotton applicator tip. Each group was divided into two subgroups of 10 samples, which were subjected to hardness testing and mineral content analysis. Surface microhardness and the calcium phosphorous ratio were recorded using a Vickers microhardness tester and energy-dispersive X-ray (EDAX) analysis at three levels i.e., baseline, after demineralization, and after remineralization and tabulated. Statistical analysis was conducted by analyzing data using ANOVA and post hoc followed by Dunnett's t-test using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 16 (Released 2007; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States). Results Vickers surface hardness testing and EDAX analysis showed statistically significant values for all the groups. Among them, maximum remineralization potential was seen in samples treated with Chitosan and 3M Clinpro combination, and minimum remineralization potential was seen in Chitosan and artificial saliva combination. Conclusion The addition of chitosan nanoparticles with various remineralizing agents showed a significant synergistic effect on remineralization activity. Also, chitosan and Clinpro combination showed the maximum surface hardness and EDAX analysis values when compared to other groups.
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.