ReviewJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2026
Validation of clinically related aging models based on enamel wear.
Review in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of clinically related aging models based on enamel wear.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Review
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
Abstract
purposePhysiological and erosive wear reported in clinical studies were reviewed, and in vitro aging models were developed to simulate and compare the effect of aging on human teeth with the review data obtained from clinical studies.
methodsA review of clinical studies and randomized clinical trials that quantify enamel wear was performed in the PubMed database. The first in vitro analysis evaluated the effect of mechanical chewing simulation only. Enamel specimens were aged in the chewing simulator (up to 1.2 million cycles) with two occlusal loads (30 and 50 N). In the second in vitro analysis, specimens were aged in two aging models. The first model (MT) simulated mechanical and thermal oral challenges: MT1- 240,000 chewing and 10,000 thermal cycles, MT2- 480,000 chewing and 20,000 thermal cycles, MT3- 1.2 million chewing and 50,000 thermal cycles. The second model (MTA) simulated mechanical, thermal, and acidic oral challenges as follows: MTA1- 240,000 chewing, 10,000 thermal and 3-h acidic cycles; MTA2: 480,000 chewing, 20,000 thermal and 6-h acidic cycles, MTA3- 1.2 million chewing, 50,000 thermal and 15-h acidic cycles.
resultsThe review included 13 clinical studies evaluating tooth wear (eight physiological and five erosive). The results estimated the annual average physiological wear as 38.4 µm (9.37-51). In comparison, the MT1 showed wear of 60 (24) µm. Also, the average annual erosive wear in the literature was 179.5 µm (70-265) compared to MTA1-induced wear of 209 (14) µm.
conclusionThere was wide variation in tooth wear reported in clinical studies, suggesting a critical need for more accurate studies, possibly based on scanning technologies. Despite this, the data reported using the novel aging models are within a range to be considered consistent with and to simulate tooth wear measured in vivo.
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.