ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Optimizing cleaning procedures for MEP residues: insights from a novel HPLC-MS analysis.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
- CD276-directed supramolecular nanoplatform with pH-triggered gemcitabine release for potent tumor stromal and vascular suppression.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a highly sensitive and reliable method for detecting Monobond Etch & Prime (MEP) residues on lithium disilicate glass ceramic (LDGC) surfaces treated with different cleaning procedures after MEP treating. MATERIALS AND
methodsA sensitive and reliable high performance liquid chromatography-tandem triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (HPLC-TTQ/MS) method was developed for the accurate quantitative determination of tetrabutylammonium dihydrogen trifluoride (TDTF) in MEP. 100 rectangular LDGC specimens (8.0 × 5.0 × 2.0 mm) were fabricated using CAD/CAM and then treating with MEP. The residual amount of TDTF in the LDGC specimens surface was tested after different cleaning procedures with different experience dentists (Junior Dentist, Experienced Dentist), different rinsing times (3 s, 6 s, 9 s) and with or without ultrasonic cleaning (UC) (n = 10).
resultsThe developed method showed good linearity (r² > 0.999) over a wide concentration range. The limit of quantification of TDTF for MEP residue was less than 5 ng/mL. The method was then applied to a comparative study of MEP residues after various cleaning procedures of LDGC specimens. Residual TDTF was detected in all experimental groups with masses ranging from 62.42 ng to 74,611.74 ng. In the absence of UC, the Experienced Dentist group had lower TDTF residual levels (5,930.74 ng) than the Junior Dentist group (30,802.05 ng) (P < 0.001). The TDTF residue level was significantly lower in the rinsing 9 s group (3,102.89 ng) compared to the rinsing 3 s group (25,348.57 ng) (P < 0.05). After UC, for the same rinsing time there was no significant difference in TDTF residue between groups (P ≥ 0.062). Notably, TDTF residue levels were substantially lower after UC with the same cleaning dentist and rinsing time (P ≤ 0.012).
conclusionsNo cleaning procedure can completely remove MEP residues, the dentist's clinical experience affects the degree of MEP cleaning, extended rinsing time improves cleaning efficiency, and ultrasonic cleaning is an effective method of removing MEP residues. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: No cleaning procedure can completely remove MEP, and dentists can increase the efficiency of cleaning by extending the rinsing time and using ultrasonic cleaning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39969631What 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.