ArticleOdontology2026
Effects of desensitizing treatments on acid-etched dentin: debris precipitation, bond strength and tag formation.
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.
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
Abstract
To evaluate the effects of formulations containing potassium nitrate, silicate, and calcium phosphate, subjected to an acid challenge, on debris precipitation, quantification of exposed dentinal tubules, bond strength, failure mode, and tag formation. One hundred and twenty bovine incisors were randomly allocated into four groups: Desensibilize NanoP, Desensibilize KF 2%, Regenerate NR-5, and a control group. Specimens were immersed daily for 5 min in orange juice (pH 3.80 ± 0.04) and then rinsed with distilled water. Forty teeth were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy to assess debris precipitation and tubular occlusion. Another forty were subjected to micro-shear bond strength testing, and the remaining forty were analyzed under optical microscopy for tag formation. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis/Dunn test (debris precipitation) and ANOVA/Tukey test (open tubules, bond strength, and tag formation), with a significance level of α = 0.05. The Regenerate group showed significantly higher debris precipitation, fewer open dentinal tubules, greater bond strength, and a higher incidence of cohesive failures. Tag formation was similar across all groups. The Regenerate protocol demonstrated superior performance in debris precipitation, tubule occlusion, bond strength, and tag formation, particularly when used in combination with a universal adhesive.
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.