ArticleBrazilian oral research2025
Occlusion, acid resistance, and elemental characterization of dentin treated with desensitizing agents.
Article in Brazilian oral research, 2025. 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.
- Innovative Dentin Remineralization and Tubule Occlusion Using Titanium Dioxide-Doped Phosphate Glass and Diode Laser: An In Vitro Study.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Biological Effects on S-PRG: An Integrative Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the early effects of peptide-containing agents in sensitivity treatment regarding their structural, morphological, and elemental changes in dentin tissue and their penetration efficacy.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the occlusion potential of in-office desensitizing agents, and characterize the human dentin elements after acid exposure. Twelve human dentin discs were sectioned into four specimens each, and randomized into treatments (n = 20): no treatment (negative control); no treatment and 6% citric acid exposure (positive control); application of Gluma desensitizer (Heraeus Kulzer) or PRG Barrier Coat (Shofu), followed by 6% citric acid exposure. Occlusion and dentin surface characteristics were determined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM, n = 10), and elemental composition (at%), by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS, n = 10). Three calibrated, blinded evaluators used SEM to categorize the occlusion potential: 1 = occluded, 2 = partially unoccluded, 3 = equally occluded/unoccluded, 4 = partially occluded, 5 = unoccluded. Data were analyzed by weighted kappa, Friedman, and Nemenyi tests (α = 0.05). For SEM, mean occlusion scores were higher for the PRG Barrier Coat than the positive control (p = 0.0235). Most specimens in the controls scored 4 or 5. The most frequent scores for PRG Barrier Coat were 1(60%) and 2(20%), while 30% of Gluma specimens scored 1 and 2. Gluma showed intratubular precipitation, while PRG Barrier Coat covered dentinal tubules totally or partially. For EDS, the K% was lower for Gluma than the negative control (p = 0.0046), with Si peaks in dentin treated with PRG Barrier Coat. The bioactive in-office desensitizing agent with S-PRG filler (PRG Barrier Coat) promoted dentin tubule occlusion, and persisted after exposure to acid.
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.