ArticleBMC oral health2026
Prevention of erosive, abrasive and erosive/abrasive tooth wear by a high-concentration fluoride dentifrice: 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis in-vitro study compared the protective effects of a 5000-ppm fluoride dentifrice with an anti-erosive 1450-ppm formulation containing stannous chloride and chitosan under erosive, abrasive, and erosive/abrasive conditions. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 240 bovine enamel specimens were randomly assigned to three models: erosion followed by abrasion (EA), erosion only (E), and abrasion only (A) (n = 80 per model; n = 20 per treatment). Four treatments were tested: artificial saliva (AS), a conventional 1450-ppm NaF and SnF
resultsSignificant differences were observed in EA and E (p < 0.05), but not in A (p = 0.40). In E, only EPOS reduced enamel surface loss compared with AS (p = 0.01), while CT and CD showed no significant differences. In EA, a significant difference was found only between AS and EPOS. CD did not show superior protective effects in any model.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in-vitro study, increasing fluoride concentration to 5000 ppm did not enhance protection against erosive or erosive/abrasive enamel surface loss. These findings suggest that formulation-related factors, including stannous-based interactions, may be more relevant than fluoride concentration alone for preventing erosive tooth wear.
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.