ArticlePeerJ2025
Article in PeerJ, 2025. 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.
- Methodological Heterogeneity in Profilometric Assessment of Experimentally Demineralized Enamel as a Model of White Spot Lesions: A Systematic Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Teeth with small to moderate cavities can be repaired with enamel resin infiltrants, a form of dental restorative material. In dental materials, it is standard practice to include several filler particles for experimental use in dental resin infiltrates. The resin's BG particles penetrate the lesion and release ions that combine with saliva to provide a mineral-rich environment that can strengthen enamel and heal. This study aimed to compare resin infiltrants based on three types of bioactive glass materials and investigate the penetration depth, microleakage, and the effect of thermal and chemical aging. Methodology: A triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) and urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA)-based experimental resin infiltrate was prepared. Initial mixing was done manually for 1 h at room temperature, followed by another mix for 30 min on a magnetic stirrer. This prepared resin, called "PURE RESIN" was then further incorporated with three different types of bioactive glasses, Results: The F-BG group achieved the highest initial and day 14 penetration coefficients. There was a superior dye penetration with the microleakage analysis in the F-BG group. The 45S5 group had the highest average penetration depth Conclusion: The F-BG group achieved the highest initial and day 14 penetration coefficients. There was a superior dye penetration with the microleakage analysis in the F-BG group. The 45S5 group had the highest average penetration depth
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.