ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Effects and Properties of Deproteinizing Methods in Dentin: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dentin deproteinization strategies are being revisited as adjunctive approaches to reduce technique sensitivity, improve monomer infiltration to mineralized dentin, and enhance the longevity of resin-dentin interfaces. This organized narrative review critically summarizes the chemistry, kinetics, biological considerations, and clinical translatability of agents used for smear-layer deproteinization or post-etching deproteinization. Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and LILACS up to October 2025 were used to identify evidence on oxidizing irrigants (sodium hypochlorite/hypochlorous acid, calcium hypochlorite, peracetic acid, chlorine dioxide), enzymatic proteolysis treatments (bromelain, papain, trypsin/pepsin, and GAG-targeting enzymes), physical approaches (heat and lasers), and post-oxidizer reducing/antioxidant strategies. Oxidizers provide the fastest and most surface-verified organic removal, but their clinical value is limited by concentration- and time-dependent oxidative carry-over, which interferes with free-radical polymerization. Enzymes offer a more selective route, although their support is driven largely by bond strength and morphological outcomes rather than direct surface-chemical confirmation. Heat remains a proof-of-principle method rather than a clinical option, whereas laser protocols are highly parameter-sensitive. Overall, deproteinization should be interpreted through a combined framework of surface chemistry, adhesive compatibility, aging behavior, biosafety, and chairside feasibility. Current evidence supports cautious, protocol-specific development rather than routine clinical adoption, with priority given to clinically realistic time-dose windows and paired surface/aging outcomes.
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.