ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Comparative evaluation of remineralizing potential of four enamel remineralising agents using SEM-EDX - An in-vitro study.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-Operative, Micro- and Minimally Invasive Methods for Caries Treatment-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Enamel Remineralization Potential of Conventional and Biomimetic Toothpaste Formulations: A Comparative In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Targeting the Oral Mucosa: Emerging Drug Delivery Platforms and the Therapeutic Potential of Glycosaminoglycans.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Compare the remineralisation potential of four enamel remineralising agents on artificially demineralized enamel surface using Scanning electron microscopy- Energy dispersive x-ray. Materials and methods: 75 extracted maxillary and mandibular premolars coated with acid-resistant nail varnish, were stored in demineralising solution for 96 h to produce artificial caries lesions. The samples were divided into 5 groups (n = 15), Control (Demineralized- No treatment), Group I samples were treated with casein phosphoprotein-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP), Group II with self-assembling peptide (SAP-14), Group III with tri-calcium phosphate (f-TCP) and Group IV with Bioactive glass (BAG), respectively. The pH cycling model was followed for 21 days. The samples were analysed via SEM-EDX (Carl Zeiss, Germany; Model: Merlin Compact) for qualitative assessment and quantitative analysis of calcium and phosphorous. The data were analysed for multiple group comparison using IBM SPSS version 20 with one-way ANOVA followed by a paired Results: Calcium/Phosphorous ratio of all experimental groups; Group 1(1.92 ± .17), Group 2 (1.98 ± .16), Group 3 (1.81 ± .03), Group 4 (1.75 ± .08) was statistically different (p < 0.0005) from Control; while there was no difference between Group I and Group II (p = 0.33). Conclusion: All experimental groups showed comparable remineralising potential. Even though no statistically significant difference is seen between Group I and Group II, after correlating with surface analysis it was concluded that Group II showed the greatest remineralising potential.
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.