ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Evaluation of preventive methods used to interrupt the progression of early caries lesions.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The objective was to evaluate the surface hardness of white spot lesions (WSL) treated with different caries prevention methods. Material and Methods: The Knoop microhardness (µKH) of 50 bovine dental enamel fragments was evaluated. WSL were induced (pH cycling) in those fragments and, after µKH analysis, the specimens received the following treatments (n=10): G1- fluoride gel (NaF 2%), G2- fluoride varnish (NaF 5%), G3-brushing with CPP-ACP based dentifrice, G4- infiltrant resin (Icon-DMG) and G5-Er,Cr:YSGG laser (8.92 J/cm2, 0.5 W). A second cariogenic challenge was done after treatments, and surface microhardness was measured before and after treatments. The Knoop hardness (KHN) values obtained were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey´s test (=5%). Results: After treatments, the KHN was similar to the baseline in all groups. After the second cariogenic challenge, it was observed that G1, G4 and G5 presented KHN similar to their baseline numbers, and in G2 and G3 the KHN was similar to the post-treatment numbers. In general, the recovery of enamel hardness after treatment was above 86%, whith fluoride gel, varnish and Icon achieving slightly better results than the CPP-ACP and Er,Cr:YSGG laser. The analysis of the acid resistance of WSL showed that in groups 1, 3 and 5 the loss of hardness was lower than that observed in G2 and G4. Conclusions: It was concluded that the treatments recovered the hardness of the demineralized enamel and that, despite the methods tested did not prevent demineralization of WSL, their effectiveness was greater than 85%.
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.