Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39215769›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2024

A comparison of conventional sodium fluoride varnish and nano-sodium fluoride varnish regarding enamel microhardness of deciduous teeth: an in-vitro study.

F Jahanimoghadam, E F Gisour, M Ranjbar, P Amdjadi, T Dehesh, M Tabatabaei Rad

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

F JahanimoghadamSocial Determinants on Oral Health Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0990-5386
E F GisourEndodontology Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5907-2119
M RanjbarPharmaceutics Research Center, Institute of Neuropharmacology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5844-3299
P AmdjadiDepartment of Dental Biomaterials, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School of Dentistry, Tehran, Iran.
T DeheshDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
M Tabatabaei RadDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran. mohadesetabatabaei@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1913-9104

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDental caries is the most common chronic disease worldwide, and various forms of fluoride are considered useful preventive tools. The production of nanoscale materials can significantly improve their mechanical and chemical properties. The present study compared the microhardness of primary tooth enamel after applying sodium fluoride varnish (conventional) and nano-sodium fluoride varnish. MATERIALS AND

methodsSixty-eight sound canine teeth were selected in this experimental study. The teeth were mounted so that the buccal surface was exposed. A 3 × 3 mm square was obtained on the buccal surface of the crown of each tooth. Enamel surfaces were polished using sandpaper in the presence of water as a coolant. The samples were randomly divided into four groups (n = 17): G1, conventional 5% NaF; G2, 1% nano-NaF; G3, 5% nano-NaF; G4, control. The initial microhardness was measured. Before surface treatment with different fluoride compounds, the samples were placed in a demineralizing solution for two days, and the microhardness of all the samples was re-measured. Then G1, G2, and G3 were treated with the fluoride type specified for each group, and G4 was treated as a control (without treatment). Finally, pH cycling was applied, and the microhardness was measured again. Data were analyzed with SPSS 20, using Repeated measure ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

resultsRepeated measure ANOVA showed that microharness of G1, G2, G3, and G4 was statistically significant different. Tukey tests showed that the microhardness of G1, G2, and G3 were not significantly different. However, these three groups exhibited significantly more microhardness than the control group (P = 0.024, P = 0.027, and P = 0.010).

conclusionThere was no significant differences in enamel microhardness of deciduous teeth between conventional 5% NaF,1% nano-NaF and 5% nano-NaF.

Indexed as

Cariostatic AgentsDental EnamelFluorides, TopicalHardnessSodium FluorideTooth, DeciduousHumansIn Vitro TechniquesCariostatic AgentsFluorides, TopicalSodium FluorideDeciduous teethNanotechnologyPediatric dentistrySodium fluorideTopical fluoride

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.