ArticleOdontology2026
Evaluation of the remineralization effect of goat milk compared to cow milk and artificial saliva on demineralized enamel (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. 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
Remineralization of early carious lesions can prevent their progression to cavitated stages. While cow milk and artificial saliva have demonstrated good remineralization potentials, the effects of goat milk remain unexplored. This study aimed to compare the remineralization capabilities of goat milk, cow milk, and artificial saliva on demineralized enamel surfaces. The tooth specimens were demineralized using citric acid, then split into three groups, each subjected to either artificial saliva, cow milk, or goat milk for remineralization. Surface roughness was measured using a Mitutoyo Surftest (SJ-210 Series), while microhardness was measured by the standard Vickers hardness method using a Wilson hardness tester, before any intervention, after demineralization, and after remineralization. Additionally, scanning electron microscopic (SEM) examination was performed at baseline, following demineralization, and remineralization. The groups did not significantly differ from one another in roughness and microhardness at baseline and following demineralization. However, following remineralization, there was a statistically significant difference between goat milk and both artificial saliva and cow milk groups, where goat milk revealed the least roughness and the highest microhardness. No significant distinctions were found between the artificial saliva and cow milk groups. A strong negative correlation between roughness and microhardness was established across all three groups. SEM confirmed goat milk to have a comparable surface morphology with the other two groups, showing a homogenous surface with few irregularities. In conclusion, goat milk demonstrated a promising remineralization potential compared to artificial saliva and cow milk. This study emphasizes the value of goat milk as a natural alternative to remineralizing agents, offering a simple yet effective strategy to prevent early carious lesions and combat demineralization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41954844What 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.