ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2024
Comparison of biofilm models for producing artificial active white spot lesions.
Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in oral disease models: a mini-review of developments from 2015 to 2025.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Influence of low viscosity resin infiltrant on the adhesion of orthodontic attachments.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
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
objectiveThis study compared three protocols for developing artificial white spot lesions (WSL) using biofilm models. METHODOLOGY: In total, 45 human enamel specimens were sterilized and allocated into three groups based on the biofilm model: Streptococcus sobrinus and Lactobacillus casei (Ss+Lc), Streptococcus sobrinus (Ss), or Streptococcus mutans (Sm). Specimens were incubated in filter-sterilized human saliva to form the acquired pellicle and then subjected to the biofilm challenge consisting of three days of incubation with bacteria (for demineralization) and one day of remineralization, which was performed once for Ss+Lc (four days total), four times for Ss (16 days total), and three times for Sm (12 days total). After WSL creation, the lesion fluorescence, depth, and chemical composition were assessed using Quantitative Light-induced Fluorescence (QLF), Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM), and Raman Spectroscopy, respectively. Statistical analysis consisted of two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test (α=0.05). WSL created using the Ss+Lc protocol presented statistically significant higher fluorescence loss (ΔF) and integrated fluorescence (ΔQ) in comparison to the other two protocols (p<0.001).
resultsIn addition, Ss+Lc resulted in significantly deeper WSL (137.5 µm), followed by Ss (84.1 µm) and Sm (54.9 µm) (p<0.001). While high mineral content was observed in sound enamel surrounding the WSL, lesions created with the Ss+Lc protocol showed the highest demineralization level and changes in the mineral content among the three protocols.
conclusionThe biofilm model using S. sobrinus and L. casei for four days was the most appropriate and simplified protocol for developing artificial active WSL with lower fluorescence, higher demineralization, and greater depth.
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.