ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparison of the effect of self-assembling peptide P
Article in BMC oral health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of six remineralization protocols—including a self-assembling peptide (SAP) P11-4 (Curodont™ Protect), a surface pre-reacted glass-ionomer agent (PRG Pro-Care Gel), nano-hydroxyapatite (Apa Care Repair), casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (Tooth Mousse), fluoride (ReminPro), and a control—on enamel microhardness recovery and color stability following in-office bleaching with 35% hydrogen peroxide. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty caries-free premolars were sectioned to obtain enamel specimens. Baseline (T0) color (CIEDE2000) and microhardness (Vickers, 300 g/15s) were measured. All samples underwent a standardized bleaching protocol (three 8-minute cycles, total 24 min). Post-bleaching measurements (T1) were taken. Specimens were randomly assigned to six groups (n = 5): Control (artificial saliva), ReminPro, Tooth Mousse, Apa Care Repair, PRG Pro-Care Gel, and Curodont™ Protect. Remineralization agents were applied four times over 28 days. Final measurements (T2) were taken after 28 days in artificial saliva. Data were analyzed using Two-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc tests (α = 0.05).
resultsBleaching significantly reduced enamel microhardness in all groups (p < 0.001). After 28 days, all agents promoted microhardness recovery compared to control (p < 0.001). Curodont™ Protect achieved microhardness values statistically equivalent to baseline, performing significantly better than all other agents. Microhardness hierarchy: Curodont™ Protect > PRG Pro-Care Gel > Apa Care Repair ≈ Tooth Mousse > ReminPro > Control. For ΔE, a significant time effect was observed (p < 0.001), but no significant intergroup differences were found (p = 0.726). A significant interaction was found for ΔL (p = 0.020), with Curodont™ Protect showing final lightness statistically indistinguishable from baseline.
conclusionThe choice of remineralizing agent influences enamel recovery after bleaching, particularly regarding mechanical properties. While all agents provided comparable ΔE stabilization, SAP P11-4 was uniquely effective, enabling near-complete microhardness recovery and distinct return of lightness to baseline. S-PRG and nano-hydroxyapatite also demonstrated strong efficacy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, biomimetic agents such as SAP P11-4 may offer advantages for structural recovery and shade perception following in-office bleaching. Further clinical studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
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.