ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Evaluation of dentinal tubule occlusion by Fluoridated and Non-fluoridated Bioactive Glass and Propolis desensitizers by scanning electron microscopy.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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.
- Effect of dentin pre-treatment with Bioglass F18 suspensions on surface characteristics and bond strength of endodontic sealers.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- 38% silver diamine fluoride for dentine hypersensitivity treatment: anFrontiers in oral health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Dentin hypersensitivity is a worldwide epidemiological dental health issue, bioactive toothpaste has been demonstarted in alleviating dentin hypersensitivity along with propolis. Hence their comparison as desensitizing agents in dentinal tubule occlusion is carried out in this research. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Fluoridated Bioactive Glass dentifrice, Non-fluoridated Bioactive Glass dentifrice, and Propolis containing dentifrice in dentinal tubule occlusion using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and its resistance to acid. Materials and methods: This is an In vitro study design with permanent maxillary and mandibular premolars, which were divided into four groups. Group 1 - Fluoridated bioactive glass (FBaG) Toothpaste; Group 2 - Bioactive glass (BaG) Toothpaste; Group 3 - Propolis Toothpaste; Group 4 - Saline. Dentin discs were obtained from the samples. 37 % phosphoric acid was used to etch and expose the dentinal tubules. Rubber cup was used to apply the desensitizing agent. Samples were then subjected to 6 % citric acid. The degree of occlusion was evaluated using SEM after application of desensitizing agent and after application of citric acid. Results: Statistical analysis was calculated and results obtained showed that specimens treated with FBaG and BaG showed highest degree of tubule occlusion with a mean value of (2.33) followed by Propolis with mean values of (3.00) and least number of occluded tubules after application of desensitizing agent. Propolis showed highest degree of occlusion with a mean value of (2.33) followed by FBaG (2.66) and BaG (3.00) after application of citric acid. Conclusion: Study concluded that FBaG and BaG-containing dentifrice showed a significant degree of dentinal tubule occlusion. Propolis demonstrated better resistance to acid attack.
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.