ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of enamel surface after interproximal reduction using different methods, with and without polishing: an in vitro study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the changes in enamel surface roughness and elemental concentrations following interproximal reduction (IPR), with and without polishing, in comparison with enamel without stripping. Selected premolars were randomly divided into a control group and four experimental groups; Group A (control): enamel without stripping, Group B: IPR with diamond bur, Group C: IPR with diamond disc, Group D: IPR with manual strip, Group E: IPR with mechanical oscillating strip. Each experimental group was divided into two subgroups where one subgroup was also polished with fine Sof-Lex discs. A total of 108 enamel samples (12 samples/subgroup and 12 samples for the control group) were used. Enamel was evaluated with atomic force microscope, energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy, and scanning electron microscope. The IPR produced higher [average roughness (nm)] in all groups compared with the enamel without stripping which measured 79.5 ± 17.4 nm. The only significant difference among the experimental groups was the higher roughness in the disc group compared to the oscillating strip group, p = 0.035. Polishing produced smoother enamel surfaces in all groups.The Ca/P weight (%) was 1.68 ± 0.45% when the enamel was not stripped and the ratio ranged from 2.03 ± 0.69% to 2.58 ± 0.47% in the IPR/IPR+polishing groups. Scanning electron microscope confirmed an increase in surface roughness following IPR with subsequent improvement after polishing. The IPR increased enamel surface roughness and affected the elements weight (%) and atomic (%). Polishing improved the surface quality. The IPR with oscillating strip followed by polishing with Sof-Lex strip produced the most favorable results.
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.