ArticleBMC oral health2025
Effect of different protocols in preventing demineralization in irradiated human enamel, in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Protective and remineralizing capacity of biosilicate, chitosan-based material, and fluoride on demineralized and irradiated enamel.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2026Article
- The Effect of Radiotherapy on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Dentin in Relation to the Timing of Restoration Procedure.International journal of dentistry · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis in vitro study evaluated the efficacy of professional and home-use fluoride regimens for protecting irradiated enamel, undergoing pH cycling resembling xerostomia.
methodsSixty human premolar teeth were irradiated with a total dose of 70 Gy and subsequently sectioned into 3 × 3 cm enamel slabs. These slabs were randomly distributed into five groups (n = 12 per group): professional-use groups received fluoride varnish either weekly (FV1) or biweekly (FV2); home-use groups applied 5000 ppm (FT5) or 1450 ppm (FT) fluoride toothpaste; and a control group (control) received no treatment. Following radiation, microhardness was measured to establish baseline values. Following 28 days of pH cycling and concurrent fluoride therapy, microhardness was reassessed on day 7, 14, 21, and 28. After the pH cycling period, surface morphology was examined using scanning electron microscopy.
resultsAll groups demonstrated declines over the 28-day pH cycling period. FV1 and FV2 maintained higher microhardness relative to control (p < 0.0001). FT5 consistently showed better preservation of enamel microhardness compared to FT (p < 0.0001), with both outperforming control (p < 0.0001), albeit FT to a lesser extent.
conclusionFluoride treatments significantly enhanced the enamel's resistance to pH reduction caused by radiation. It is recommended to apply professional fluoride varnish biweekly and use 5000 ppm fluoride toothpaste twice daily for the most effective enhancement of pH resistance in irradiated enamel.
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.