ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of the effectiveness of different remineralization agents on primary and permanent teeth exposed to acidic liquids: a randomized controlled 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.
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.
- Biomimetic Enamel Remineralization in Pediatric Dentistry: From Biological Principles to Clinical Evidence.Cureus · 2026Review
- Tetracycline Enables Visualization of Remineralization Induced by Agents Penetrating Dental Enamel.Calcified tissue international · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of different remineralization agents applied to primary and permanent teeth that were demineralized in acidic environments with varying pH levels, using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and microhardness measurements.
methodsIn this study, 80 primary second molars and 80 permanent premolars were used and demineralization procedure was applied by keeping in gastric acid (pH = 1.2) and kefir (pH = 4.5) for 72 h. Then, samples were randomly divided into groups (n = 10) to be applied with different remineralization agents (Curodont Protect, MI Paste Plus, Tooth Mousse) for 14 days. Samples in the control group were kept in artificial saliva for 14 days. Microhardness measurements were made at the beginning, after the demineralization procedure and after the remineralization procedure from all groups and SEM analyses were performed on one sample from each group. Since the assumptions of parametric test were met in the evaluation of the data (Kolmogorov-Smirnov), two-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey post hoc test. p < 0.05 was accepted as the significance value.
resultsThe lowest microhardness values and the most eroded areas in SEM images were observed in primary teeth. When acidic liquids were evaluated, microhardness values decreased more in those immersed in gastric acid than at the initial. After the application of remineralization agents, the microhardness values of primary and permanent teeth increased the most in the Curodont Protect group and the least in the control group. In SEM images, the most eroded areas were observed in the control group in which no remineralization agent was applied after immersed in gastric acid in primary teeth.
conclusionGastric acid is a stronger acid compared to kefir, which may explain its more erosive effect on both primary and permanent teeth. Curodont Protect, a biomimetic peptide-based product, can be preferred primarily in clinical use for erosive enamel treatment because it shows an effective remineralization ability on eroded enamel.
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.