ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Exploring the anti-erosive potential of film-forming polymers and fluoride on salivary pellicle modification.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the effect of solutions containing film-forming polymers on salivary pellicle modification for protection against dental erosion. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree polymers were tested: Chitosan, Carbopol, and Linear sodium polyphosphate (LPP), each with or without sodium fluoride (F). Control groups were deionized water, F only, and tin/fluoride (Sn/F, positive control). Bovine enamel specimens underwent 10 cycles consisting of: 1 min salivary pellicle formation, 1 min modification with experimental solutions (n = 15/solution), 28 min salivary pellicle formation, and an erosive challenge (1 min for the first 5 cycles, 5 min for the last 5 cycles, totaling 30 min). Relative surface hardness (rSH), surface loss (SL), and calcium release (CaR) were analyzed after 5 and 30 min of erosion. The wettability of enamel in the presence and absence of the pellicle promoted by the solutions was also evaluated.
resultsChitosan showed a protective effect, with best results in rSH after 30 min in the no F subgroup, and when combined with F, it had similar performance to Sn/F. Carbopol showed the least protection, with the greatest loss of rSH and highest CaR, while LPP performed similarly to Carbopol whether combined or not to F. All polymer solutions exhibited higher wettability in the presence of the pellicle.
conclusionsOnly Chitosan modified the pellicle and improved its protective effect against erosion. The pellicle may hinder the adsorption of negatively charged polymers, reducing their protective potential. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Chitosan may be a promissing agent for incorporation into erosion-preventive oral care products.
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.