ArticleCureus2024
Restoring Enamel Strength: A Knoop Hardness Number Evaluation of Remineralizing Toothpastes.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Polydopamine-infused toothpaste: An in vitro assessment of cytotoxicity and embryonic toxicology.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim This investigation compares and assesses the microhardness of human dental enamel after the use of two types of widely available remineralizing toothpaste. Methodology Thirty extracted anterior incisors were chosen as study samples and split into three groups: Control (Group 1), Enafix (EX-Group 2), and Sensodyne Repair (SR-Group 3). All of the sample groups were assessed using a Knoop indenter at baseline, after demineralization, and then again after remineralization. Then, to compare the outcomes for the variation in Knoop hardness, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed. Results The Control group exhibited the highest mean microhardness (472.00±17.783), indicating superior enamel integrity and the least variability. The EX group showed a lower mean microhardness of 340.40±40.368, demonstrating effective remineralization but with greater variability. Statistical analysis using ANOVA revealed highly significant differences between the groups, with an F-statistic of 104.292 and a p-value of 0.000, indicating that the variations in microhardness among the groups were statistically significant. Conclusion Both SR and EX toothpaste can effectively help dental enamel regain its hardness and remineralization following demineralization with slightly superior activity from EX.
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.