ArticleJADA foundational science2025
Effect of regenerating toothpastes on abrasion of eroded enamel and dentin: An in vitro study.
Article in JADA foundational science, 2025. 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
Background: This in vitro study evaluated the effect of self-declared enamel regenerating toothpastes on advanced erosive tooth lesions. Methods: A total of 48 bovine crown and root samples were allocated into the toothpastes: Elmex Erosion Protection (GABA International AG, 1,400 ppm F; pH, 4.69) (positive control); Dentalclean Regenerator Sensitive (Dentalclean, 1,450 ppm F; pH, 4.97); Sensodyne Repair & Protect (GlaxoSmithKline) (1,426 ppm F; pH, 9.78) and erosion only (no abrasion) (negative control) (n = 12). All samples were subjected to erosive pH cycles (4× 90 seconds/day in 0.1% citric acid, pH 2.5). Groups 1 through 3 underwent abrasive challenges (2× 15 seconds/day abrasion + 45-second treatment) using toothpaste slurries and a brushing machine over 7 days. Between erosive and abrasive challenges, samples were immersed in artificial saliva. Wear was quantified using contact profilometry (in micrometers) to compare the initial and final profiles. Data were statistically compared using analysis of variance and Tukey test ( Results: Brushing with Dentalclean (3.67 [0.47] μm) induced the greatest enamel wear (SD), followed by Sensodyne (2.99 [0.56] μm). Both were significantly different (SD) from Elmex (1.85 [0.38] μm) ( Conclusions: Self-declared enamel regenerating toothpastes potentiate advanced erosive lesions. However, for dentin, Sensodyne toothpaste showed a similar result to the positive control.
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.