ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Analysis of Enamel Surface Roughness Between Herbal and Non-herbal Dentifrices: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surface roughness of enamel and cention N after toothpaste brushing: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Herbal toothpaste craze: A marketing triumph or a public health concern.Bioinformation · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionToothbrushing is a primary contributor to the mechanical abrasion of enamel, and the degree of surface roughness is largely influenced by the abrasive components present in toothpaste and tooth powders. The abrasivity of dentifrices is determined by the type, composition, and particle size of the abrasive agents, which vary significantly between herbal and non-herbal formulations. The present study aimed to comparatively assess the surface roughness of enamel after brushing with herbal and non-herbal toothpastes, providing insights into their relative abrasivity and potential effects on long-term enamel wear. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 48 extracted premolar teeth were collected and randomly assigned into six groups. The groups included the following: Group 1 (n=8), a non-herbal toothpaste (Colgate Max Fresh, Colgate-Palmolive, New York, New York, United States); Group 2 (n=8), a non-herbal toothpaste (Pepsodent, Unilever, London, United Kingdom); Group 3 (n=8), a herbal toothpaste (Himalaya Complete Care, Himalaya Wellness Company, Karnataka, India); Group 4 (n=8), a herbal toothpaste (Dabur Meswak, Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi, India); Group 5 (n=8), a herbal tooth powder (Vicco, Vicco Labs, Maharashtra, India); and Group 6 (n=8), the control group using only distilled water. The surface roughness of the enamel in all groups was evaluated both at baseline (pre-brushing) and after a 28-day brushing regimen. Data analysis was performed using a paired t-test for intragroup comparisons and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for intergroup comparisons to assess statistical significance.
resultsStatistical analysis demonstrated no significant differences in the surface roughness between the pre- and post-brushing measurements in any of the experimental groups. The baseline (pre-brushing) surface roughness values did not show any statistically significant variation among the groups (p=0.145), indicating initial homogeneity. However, following the 28-day brushing period, a statistically significant difference in the mean increase in surface roughness after post-brushing was observed among the groups (p=0.032), suggesting that the abrasive effects of the different dentifrices varied, leading to measurable differences in enamel roughness. Vicco tooth powder caused the highest increase in surface roughness, while Colgate Max Fresh led to the lowest increase.
conclusionOur study highlights that while non-herbal pastes and herbal powders exhibit differential effects on enamel roughness, all tested formulations remained within safe limits for regular use. However, the significant increase in roughness with herbal tooth powder emphasizes the need for further formulation optimization to balance efficacy and enamel safety.
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.