ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative effects of fluoride-containing and remineralization-promoting agents on artificial gastric juice-induced bovine enamel erosion susceptibility: an in vitro study.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a major risk factor for erosive tooth wear because repeated exposure of enamel to gastric acid promotes demineralization. This in vitro study evaluated the protective effects of fluoride-containing and remineralization-promoting agents on enamel erosion induced by simulated gastric acid challenge.
methodsEighty-four bovine enamel specimens were randomly assigned to seven groups (n = 12/group): a sound enamel control group, an erosion control group treated with distilled water, and five treatment groups receiving Natural-F gel (2.09% NaF, NF), Tooth Mousse (fluoride-free CPP-ACP, CA), MI Varnish (5% NaF, MV), V-Varnish (5% NaF, VV), or Fluor Protector (0.1% fluoride, FP). Of the 12 specimens in each group, 10 were used for quantitative analyses and 2 for scanning electron microscopy (SEM). All groups except the sound enamel control underwent 5 days of erosive cycling with hydrochloric acid (pH 2.3) and artificial saliva. Enamel surface changes were assessed by surface roughness, gloss, microhardness, quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF), and SEM.
resultsSignificant intergroup differences were observed in surface roughness, gloss, and microhardness. FP showed lower roughness and higher gloss than the other treatment groups, whereas microhardness decreased significantly in all groups except FP compared with sound enamel (p < 0.05). No significant differences in fluorescence loss were observed among the treatment groups (p > 0.05). SEM revealed rough and porous surfaces in all groups except FP, which showed a relatively smooth morphology.
conclusionsTested fluoride-containing and remineralization-promoting agents did not provide equivalent protection against artificial gastric juice-induced enamel erosion. Although FP showed favorable effects across several enamel surface parameters, this pattern was not consistently observed across all outcome measures, particularly QLF. These findings suggest that formulation-related properties may be relevant to the design of preventive strategies for GERD-associated dental erosion.
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.