ArticlePloS one2024
Relative abrasive potential of silica-based conventional and tablet dentifrices on enamel and dentin.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Article
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
objectivesThis in vitro study aimed to investigate the toothbrushing wear on both enamel and dentin surfaces of reference and commercially available dentifrices.
methodsBovine enamel and dentin blocks were initially polished and embedded within a resin composite in square shapes (10×8×6 mm3). Employing toothbrushes equipped with nylon bristles, a toothbrushing machine was utilized, subjecting dentin specimens (n = 36) to 500 brush cycles and enamel samples to 5000 brush cycles (n = 36). Before and after the brushing simulation (2.45-N, 180 strokes per minute), an advanced contact profilometer was employed to measure the abraded depth. The wear rates were analyzed by using One-way ANOVA with two-sided Dunnett's multiple comparisons with a control (water).
resultsSignificant variations were observed among the tested toothpaste formulations, particularly in dentin wear, where Sident and Prodent showed notably higher values (7.30 μm and 9.67 μm, respectively) compared to the water control group (0.79 μm). Prodent also induced the highest enamel wear (2.64 μm) among the toothpaste formulations, while water, Zendium, and Denttabs exhibited comparatively lower enamel wear values. Statistical analysis using One-way ANOVA with two-sided Dunnett's multiple comparisons against the control (water) confirmed these differences. SIGNIFICANCE: Toothbrushing with water causes minimal wear on enamel and dentin tissues, suggesting the predominant effect of three-body wear when using an abrasive medium. Comparing the standard references for dentifrice abrasives, Sident and Sylodent exhibit similar wear rates, making them reliable choices for in-vitro tests. When employed in a similar frequency, the wear rate of commercial toothpaste depends more on its composition than its form (paste or tablets).
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.