ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of the remineralization potential of bioactive materials using different methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the remineralization capacities of bioactive restorative materials with different compositions on initial enamel lesions using different evaluation methods. The study was conducted under in vitro conditions using 120 caries-free human molars. The teeth were randomly assigned to the experimental groups (Fuji Triage, ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative, BeautiSealant, and Premier BioCoat). Measurement areas were prepared by creating 2 mm diameter windows on the enamel surfaces in five different regions (intact enamel, lesion area after demineralization, and after material application at 1-week, 1-month, and 3-months). The materials were applied according to the manufacturers' recommendations, and the samples were stored in a simulated body fluid at 37 °C and 1 atmosphere pressure in an incubator for 3-months. Changes in enamel surface hardness were analyzed using a microhardness tester, while elemental changes were assessed using SEM-EDS analysis. SEM imaging was performed, and lesion areas were assessed using a quantitative light-induced fluorescence device (QLF-D) to measure fluorescence and lesion area changes. Statistical analyses were performed (α = 0.05). After 3-months of remineralization, all materials showed a statistically significant increase in microhardness values compared to the demineralized lesion areas (p < 0.05). EDS analysis of the 3-months data showed no statistically significant difference from sound enamel for any of the materials evaluated (p > 0.05). The QLF-D analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in lesion area and fluorescence values over time for all materials (p < 0.05). All evaluated materials contributed to lesion repair based on the evaluated parameters. Using quantitative assessment methodologies, Fuji Triage was determined to provide the highest level of remineralization. Clinical relevance: This study demonstrates the clinical potential of bioactive restorative materials as effective agents for non-invasive caries treatment by enhancing enamel remineralization through continuous ion release, supporting minimally invasive treatment approaches and long-term preservation of tooth structure.
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.