ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Effect of charcoal-based dentifrices on the surface integrity and gloss of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effects of commercially charcoal-based dentifrices on the surface roughness and gloss retention of glazed lithium disilicate glass-ceramics subjected to simulated toothbrushing. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy-two glazed lithium disilicate specimens (IPS e.max CAD) were randomly assigned to three dentifrice groups (n = 24): two charcoal-based (Carvvo (CVV), Curaprox Black is White (CBW)) and one conventional (Colgate Total 12 (C12)), the control. Toothbrushing simulations were performed for 5,000, 10,000, and 20,000 cycles. Roughness (Ra) and gloss (GU) were measured at baseline and after each cycle. Surface characterization was performed using three-dimensional profilometry and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), which also analyzed abrasive particles. Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (α = 0.05).
resultsRoughness was affected only by dentifrice type (p = 0.004), with CVV producing higher mean values than C12, and CBW not differing from the others. Brushing cycle (p = 0.164) and interaction (p = 0.095) were non-significant. Gloss was affected by dentifrice (p < 0.001), brushing cycle (p < 0.001), and their interaction (p < 0.001). Charcoal-based dentifrices caused gloss reductions (CVV: 80.77GU baseline to 67.41GU at 20,000 cycles; CBW: 86.39GU baseline to 69.62GU at 20,000 cycles). In contrast, C12 increased gloss, reaching up to 95.97GU at 20,000 cycles.
conclusionsCharcoal-based dentifrices significantly compromise the surface integrity of glazed lithium disilicate ceramics by increasing roughness and reducing gloss. Conventional dentifrices demonstrate no deleterious effect on ceramic surfaces and may even enhance gloss. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Routine use of charcoal-based dentifrices may accelerate surface wear and reduce optical properties of ceramic restorations, potentially compromising longevity and esthetic outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40875068What 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.