ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Comparative analysis of low-abrasive powders on root surface roughness and substance loss: an ex vivo study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo comparatively evaluate the effects of four low-abrasive air-polishing powders (glycine, erythritol, trehalose, and sodium bicarbonate) on root surface roughness and substance loss in an ex vivo model. MATERIALS AND
methods210 specimens from 105 human teeth were randomly allocated to four treatment groups (n = 50); 10 additional specimens served for measurement error analysis. Air-polishing was performed using glycine (25 μm), erythritol (14 μm), trehalose (30 μm), or sodium bicarbonate (40 μm). Three-dimensional surface topography was assessed by laser scanning microscopy before and after treatment using ISO 25,178 roughness parameters. Data were analyzed using rank-based ANCOVA with tooth type and surface location as covariates.
resultsPost-treatment average roughness differed significantly between groups (p < 0.001, η
conclusionGlycine and erythritol produced greater surface roughness than trehalose and sodium bicarbonate under the tested device configuration, while all powders demonstrated minimal substance loss, supporting their safety for subgingival application. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Glycine and erythritol produced greater surface topographical changes compared to trehalose and sodium bicarbonate, which may reflect more pronounced powder-surface interaction; whether this translates into superior debridement efficacy requires direct microbiological investigation. The comparable and minimal substance loss across all powders supports their safety for repeated subgingival application.
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.