ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2025
Impact of prophylaxis pastes and application techniques on immature enamel surface roughness: an in-vitro study.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Prophylaxis is an effective method for preventing dental caries and periodontal diseases. This in-vitro study evaluated changes in the roughness of the immature enamel surface following different prophylaxis methods. The crowns of 35 extracted third molars were sectioned buccolingually to obtain buccal and lingual halves. Seventy samples were mounted in acrylic blocks and randomly allocated to seven groups (n = 10 per group): Group 1 (Golchai paste/Rubber cup), Group 2 (Morvabon paste/rubber cup), Group 3 (Sina paste/Rubber cup), Group 4 (Rubber cup-only), Group 5 (Brush-only), Group 6 (Golchai paste/brush), and Group 7 (Golchai paste-double amount/ higher speed rubber cup). Prophylaxis was performed for 3 s using a handpiece at 3000 rpm with 200 g pressure. The untreated half of each sample served as a control. A non-contact profilometer was utilized to evaluate the surface roughness. Statistical analyses were conducted employing ANOVA, Tukey's post-hoc test, paired t-tests, and Wilcoxon tests (α = 0.05). ANOVA indicated a significant difference in surface roughness among groups (p-value = 0.008). Pairwise comparison showed that Golchai paste reduced surface roughness when applied with a rubber cup but increased it when used with a brush, with a statistically significant difference between the two methods. However, Golchai/rubber cup group was comparable to Morvabon/rubber cup and Sina/rubber cup groups. Within-group comparisons showed a significant reduction in surface roughness in Golchai/rubber cup group (p-value = 0.010), while Brush-only group exhibited a significant increase (p-value = 0.028). Among the tested methods, the combination of Golchai paste and a rubber cup produced the smoothest enamel surface. In contrast, using Golchai paste with a brush resulted in the roughest surface. Doubling the paste amount and increasing the handpiece speed did not significantly alter roughness. Based on these in-vitro findings, the use of a prophylaxis brush is not recommended for immature or newly erupted teeth, as it resulted in increased surface roughness. Future in-vivo studies are warranted to further investigate these effects in clinical settings.
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.