ArticleBMC oral health2025
Therapeutic and protective effects of light-cured varnishes on erosive lesions: an 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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence and Risk of Dental Erosion Linked to Carbonated Drinks in Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of S-PRG containing coat on the shear bond strength and the prevention of enamel microcrack formation after orthodontic bracket removal: an invitro study.BMC oral health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate the efficacy of light-cured fluoride varnishes on artificial erosive lesions.
methodsThirty extracted third molars were subjected to a 5-day erosive cycle, involving exposure to citric acid (pH 3.6, 4 × 1 min) and artificial saliva (pH 7, 4 × 2 h). The samples were then divided into five groups: light-cured glass ionomer varnish (CXT; Clinpro XT, 3 M™ ESPE, USA), light-cured giomer varnish (PRG; PRG Barrier Coat, SHOFU™, USA), casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium fluoride phosphate (MIV; MI Varnish, GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan), 5% sodium fluoride (VPF; Voco Profluorid Varnish, VOCO GmbH, Germany), and distilled water (DW, negative control) groups. After initial erosion, the samples were treated with varnishes and subjected to a second 7-day erosive cycle. The Vickers microhardness and surface roughness were measured at each stage. The therapeutic (rehardening) effects were expressed as the surface microhardness recovery percentage (SMHR%) and roughness progression (RP1%), whereas the protective effects were indicated by relative erosion resistance percentage (RER%) and roughness progression (RP2%).
resultsThe VPF group showed significantly higher SMHR% compared to the control group (p < 0.05). After the second demineralization, the CXT and PRG groups demonstrated significantly higher RER% than the negative control group (p < 0.05). Surface roughness measurements revealed no significant differences among the groups (p > 0.05). Qualitative analysis of profilometric images showed that surface irregularities present after the initial demineralization (t1) were reduced following varnish application at t2. However, after the second erosive cycle at t3, new irregularities were observed, particularly in the DW and VPF groups.
conclusionThis study revealed that conventional fluoride varnish exhibited greater therapeutic effects, as evidenced by improved surface microhardness recovery, whereas light-cured varnishes were more effective at providing protection against erosion. These findings highlight the potential of light-cured fluoride varnishes in providing extended surface protection.
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.