ArticleOdontology2026
Enamel remineralization potential of bioactive glass-containing toothpastes: an in vitro study.
Article in Odontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Navigating fluoride hesitancy: mapping the evidence base for fluoride-free toothpaste alternatives.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
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
Abstract
This study evaluated the remineralization potential of experimental containing bioactive glass, hydroxyapatite, protein-calcium glycerophosphate, and their fluoride-enriched formulations on artificially demineralized enamel. Eighty extracted human molars were sectioned into enamel specimens, and artificial caries lesions were induced. Specimens were randomly divided into eight groups (n = 10): experimental formulations (bioactive glass (MB), bioactive glass + fluoride (MBF), hydroxyapatite (MH), hydroxyapatite + fluoride (MHF), protein + calcium glycerophosphate (MP)), commercial toothpastes (Sensodyne Repair & Protect with NovaMin (MS), R.O.C.S. Sensitive (MR)), and a control group. All specimens underwent a 14-day pH-cycling protocol simulating daily demineralization and remineralization. Remineralization efficacy was assessed at baseline, post-demineralization, and post-treatment using DIAGNOdent Pen, FluoreCam imaging, and Vickers microhardness testing. Data were analyzed using ANOVA. Significance level was set at p < 0.05. The highest microhardness recovery occurred in MHF (60.65 ± 21.92) and MS (57.07 ± 24.14), while the least increase was observed in the control (9.46 ± 14.28) and MP (15.5 ± 17.23) (p < 0.001). FluoreCam analysis revealed the greatest mineral gain in MHF (4.22 ± 2.24), MS (4.12 ± 1.57), and MBF (4.02 ± 2.73); however, no significance was detected between treatment groups (p = 0.419). DIAGNOdent Pen values were lowest post-treatment in MR (6.7 ± 0.9), MBF (6.9 ± 0.94), and MS (6.9 ± 1.14), while all treatment groups had significantly lower values than the control (11.1 ± 1.45) (p < 0.001). Experimental toothpastes containing bioactive glass, hydroxyapatite, and protein- calcium glycerophosphate, as well as commercial products containing NovaMin and hydroxyapatite, supported enamel remineralization. The addition of fluoride enhanced this effect. Clinical significance This study demonstrates the potential of various remineralization agents to strengthen early enamel lesions, offering clinicians alternative non-invasive options for early caries management.
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.