ArticleCureus2024
In Vitro Evaluation of Remineralization Potential of Five Toothpastes on Soft Drink-Eroded Human Enamel and Dentine.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the potential remineralization of enamel and dentine erosion lesions after the application of five different toothpastes. METHODOLOGY: A total of 104 enamel and dentine samples were prepared from maxillary third molars. Each group was divided according to the toothpaste application mode (topical = 56; brushing = 48) and the toothpaste used seven topical groups and six brushing groups (n = 8). The groups included negative control (NC), positive control (PC), Sensodyne Pronamel (SP), Regenerate (R), Regenerate with boosting serum (R+), Colgate Duraphat 5000 (CD), and tooth mousse (TM).
resultsThe statistical analysis showed significant surface microhardness (SMH) change. All enamel groups showed a significant decrease in SMH compared to NC for both application modes. However, no significance was recorded between test groups. Similar results were observed between dentine groups and their relevant controls for both application modes, except brushed R and R+ groups, which were insignificant to their NC. For topical groups, TM showed a significant increase in SMH. While R and R+ showed lower loss than SP and CD.
conclusionsAll tested agents offered a degree of remineralization in both enamel and dentine with no significant difference between agents in enamel groups while R, R+, and TM offered better results in dentine groups. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: For dentine groups, similar findings were observed with superior tooth surface protection with the application of TM over other agents. Tooth surface remineralization was achieved when agents were either applied topically or brushed over the surface.
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.