ArticleActa odontologica latinoamericana : AOL2026
Effect of disinfection and storage media on surface microhardnessof human enamel blocks.
Article in Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Protocolized disinfection and storage are critical to ensuring the quality of dental specimens used in in vitro studies. However, few evaluations have addressed the effect of different combinations of disinfection and storage media on the surface microhardness of human enamel blocks.
aimTo evaluate the effect of different disinfection and storage media on the microhardness of human enamel blocks over four time periods. MATERIALS AND
methodThe study received ethical approval. The surface microhardness of human enamel blocks was measured at baseline (T0). Subsequently, three blocks were assigned to each of six different disinfection-storage media combinations: acetic acid (5%) - chloramine (1%) [AA-CT], hypochlorite (5.25%) - chloramine (1%) [NaOCl-CT], chloramine (0.5%) - chloramine (1%) [CT-CT], acetic acid (5%) - thymol (0.02%) [AA-TH], hypochlorite (5.25%) - thymol (0.02%) [NaOCl-TH], and chloramine (0.5%) - thymol (0.02%) [CT-TH]. After two weeks (T1), one month (T2), three months (T3) or six months (T4) of storage at 4°C, microhardness was reassessed. Percentages of microhardness variation (mineral gain/loss) from baseline were calculated for each time. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and two-way ANOVA to identify differences among disinfection-storage medium combinations and storage times, respectively.
resultsA total 72 enamel blocks were analyzed. The microhardness variation percentages showed that the CT-TH combination (T1: 0.00%; T2: 4.05%; T3: 2.78%; T4: -4.74%; p>0.005) had the least variation, and that the microhardness values in the six groups at T3 were the most stable and did not differ significantly (p= 0.630).
conclusionCombinations of chloramine-thymol and chloramine-chloramine generated the fewest changes in microhardness in enamel blocks, and are suitable for preserving extracted teeth.
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.