ArticleTheScientificWorldJournal2026
The Differences of Remineralization Potential of Bioactive Resin Infiltration and Conventional Resin Infiltration on Artificial Demineralized Enamel.
Article in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Differences of Remineralization Potential of Bioactive Resin Infiltration and Conventional Resin Infiltration on Artificial Demineralized Enamel.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2026Article
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
Abstract
introductionManagement of demineralized enamel has focused on the use of materials for remineralization. This study compared the remineralization potential of bioactive remineralizing resin (2R) with conventional resin (CR) infiltration on demineralized enamel. MATERIAL AND
methodsSixty demineralized enamel premolars were generated, allocated for three groups for infiltration with 2R, CR, and no treatment (NT), and subjected to pH cycling. Samples were determined for microhardness of enamel at the levels 50-100-200-300 μm from the external surface. Polarized light microscopy (PLM) and energy dispersive spectroscopy were assessed for infiltration depth and calcium/phosphorus ratio (Ca/P). ANOVA and Fisher's test were analyzed for significant differences in microhardness and Ca/P among groups (α = 0.05).
results2R exhibited significantly higher hardness and Ca/P to demineralized enamel than CR and NT for every depth (p < 0.05), except for the hardness of 2R versus CR at 50 and 100 μm, and Ca/P of 2R-100 and 200 μm versus CR-50 μm. 2R showed significantly higher infiltration and remineralization to demineralized enamel than CR and NT. PLM denoted a greater decrease in depth of carious lesion for 2R, compared with CR, with no depth reduction for NT.
conclusion2R is capable of penetrating and enhancing the hardness of demineralized enamel more than CR, compared with NT. Increasing Ca/P upon infiltration with 2R over CR and NT denoted the capability of remineralization to carious lesions. A decrease in the depth of carious lesions was observed upon 2R application, more than CR and NT. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: 2R infiltration demonstrated an effective remineralization material for handling initial carious lesions in dental practice.
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.