ArticleBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2026
The
Article in Biomaterial investigations in dentistry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This in vitro study evaluated the enamel remineralization potential and cytotoxicity of an experimental 38% silver diamine fluoride prepared using a silver nitrate precursor (EXP-SDF; Dentalife, Melbourne, Australia). EXP-SDF was compared with commercial 38% SDF (Topamine; Dentalife), 5% NaF varnish (Duraphat; Colgate-Palmolive, USA), and 2.1% NaF gel (ClinproClear; 3M ESPE Dental Products, USA). Materials and methods: Fluoride and silver concentrations, as well as the pH of EXP-SDF, were initially examined. Enamel specimens were prepared and randomized into five groups: Topamine, EXP-SDF, Duraphat, ClinproClear, and deionized water (control). The enamel specimens were demineralized and treated with materials and then subjected to a 14-day pH-cycling regimen. Enamel surface remineralization was quantified as the percentage of surface microhardness recovery (%SMHR). Mineral precipitation on the surface was then examined using Raman spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction (XRD), and scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDX). Cytotoxicity of the experimental SDF was also evaluated using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. Results: EXP-SDF exhibited a higher fluoride concentration but comparable pH to Topamine. The increase in enamel surface microhardness of EXP-SDF (35%) was similar to that of Topamine (34%) ( Conclusion: EXP-SDF promoted comparable remineralization of demineralized enamel and
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.