ArticleCureus2025
Effectiveness of Desensitizing Dentifrices and 980 nm Diode Laser in Occluding Dentinal Tubules: An In Vitro Scanning Electron Microscopy 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.
- Comparative evaluation of nano-hydroxyapatite dentifrice, diode laser alone and combined for dentin hypersensitivity: A randomized clinical trial.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Dentin Hypersensitivity Treated With Diode Laser and Aminefluoride: A Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of dentistry · 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
introductionThis in vitro study aimed to compare the efficacy of three desensitizing dentifrices, alongside a 980 nm diode laser, in occluding dentinal tubules to reduce dentine permeability and alleviate hypersensitivity. The primary objective was to assess tubule occlusion using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The secondary objectives were to evaluate the relative effectiveness of each treatment in reducing dentine permeability and to compare their potential to mitigate hypersensitivity symptoms by occluding the dentinal tubules. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis in vitro study was conducted on 50 extracted human first premolar teeth that were sectioned into 2 mm dentinal discs. The discs were ultrasonicated to remove the smear layer and randomly allocated into five groups (n = 10): Group 1 (control, brushed with distilled water; Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, India), Group 2 (brushed with Emoform, Dr. Wild & Co. AG, Muttenz, Switzerland), Group 3 (brushed with Propolis, Apis India Ltd., New Delhi, India), Group 4 (brushed with Sensodyne Repair and Protect, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, Brentford, UK), and Group 5 (treated with a 980 nm diode laser, Biolase Epic X, Biolase Inc., Irvine, USA). Groups 1-4 were brushed twice daily for seven days with a soft-bristled toothbrush (Colgate SlimSoft, Colgate-Palmolive India Ltd., Mumbai, India) using the respective slurries. Group 5 was lased at 0.8 W in continuous wave mode for 10 s. Specimens were gold-palladium-coated and analyzed by SEM (ZEISS EVO 18, Carl Zeiss AG, Oberkochen, Germany) at 5000x magnification to calculate the percentage of occluded tubules.
resultsThe Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant differences in tubule occlusion (p = 0.001). The laser group demonstrated the highest occlusion rate, followed by the Sensodyne Repair and Protect, propolis-based dentifrice, and Emoform groups, all of which significantly outperformed the control group (Dunn's test, p < 0.05). The laser group exhibited superior consistency, while Sensodyne Repair and Protect showed robust occlusion compared with the other dentifrices.
conclusionThe 980 nm diode laser was the most effective in occluding dentinal tubules, followed by Sensodyne Repair and Protect, propolis-based dentifrice, and Emoform. These treatments offer potential for managing dentine hypersensitivity, with the laser providing rapid occlusion and Sensodyne Repair and Protect as a practical alternative. Further in vivo studies are required to validate its clinical efficacy.
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.