ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Integrated Characterization by EDS and Roughness as a Diagnostic Tool for Dental Enamel Degradation: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In fixed orthodontic treatment, brackets are orthodontic attachments bonded to the tooth enamel, and their placement and removal may affect the underlying enamel surface. Enamel degradation is a critical factor for oral health, as it reduces the mechanical strength of teeth and increases susceptibility to caries and erosion. Accurate diagnosis of enamel changes is therefore essential for the evaluation of preventive and restorative treatments. In this study, enamel degradation was investigated via two integrated methods: energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) and surface roughness measurement. The experimental protocol was performed in three stages: before bracket bonding, after bracket removal, and after applying a remineralization treatment. The experimental design included a repeated-measures structure, with stage (baseline, post-debonding, post-remineralization) as the within-tooth factor and bracket type (sapphire vs. metallic) as the between-tooth factor. Given the violation of the variance homogeneity assumption, group comparisons were ultimately performed using Welch ANOVA followed by Games-Howell post hoc tests, with Bonferroni-adjusted values used for pairwise comparisons. The presence of orthodontic brackets can influence enamel mineralization because the bonding and debonding procedures modify the enamel surface microtopography. These procedures can generate microcracks and surface irregularities, which may affect mineral exchange between enamel and the surrounding environment. In our study, bracket removal led to a significant decrease in the mean atomic percentages of Ca (from 32.65% to 16.37% for sapphire) and P (from 16.35% to 8.60% for sapphire), accompanied by a sharp increase in surface roughness. After remineralization, Ca and P levels increased, while roughness decreased. However, neither the mineral content nor the surface topography fully returned to the initial values, indicating that remineralization achieved only a partial recovery of enamel integrity. These findings highlight that the integrated EDS approach and roughness analysis offer a promising descriptive framework for assessing enamel degradation and monitoring the effectiveness of remineralization therapies. The generated mathematical model provides a powerful descriptive framework for the in vitro data obtained, correlating roughness with mineral composition and treatment stage. However, such a high goodness-of-fit (R
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.