ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Effect of two biomimetic remineralizing systems on artificially demineralized enamel: Assessment of mineral recovery and orthodontic bracket bond strength.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effect of two remineralizing systems (Regenerate™ and Orthocare™) on the mineral recovery of demineralized enamel and on the shear bond strength (SBS) of brackets.
methods180 bovine teeth were divided into four groups: 1)Intact enamel, 2)Demineralized enamel, 3)Demineralized enamel/Regenerate™, and 4)Demineralized enamel treated/Orthocare™. Groups 2 to 4 were demineralized. All samples were brushed three times daily; groups 1 and 2 without toothpaste, and groups 3 and 4 were treated with Regenerate™ or Orthocare™. Outcomes were assessed by SBS, adhesive remnant area, field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), Raman spectroscopy, surface microhardness, and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Parametric or non-parametric tests according to data distribution (α = 0.05).
resultsDemineralized enamel showed significantly lower SBS, adhesive remnant, surface microhardness, mineral density, calcium and phosphorus content, and phosphate-related Raman parameters than intact enamel (p < 0.05). FE-SEM revealed increased porosity. Neither remineralizing system significantly restored SBS compared with untreated demineralized enamel. However, both treatments promoted partial enamel remineralization, improved calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) levels (p < 0.001), increasing surface microhardness and mineral density (p < 0.05). Raman showed greater recovery of phosphate (I
conclusionsBoth agents partially remineralized enamel without fully restoring sound enamel properties. Regenerate™ demonstrated better mineral recovery than Orthocare™. However, the newly formed hydroxyapatite appeared immature, and bond strength was not significantly improved compared with demineralized enamel. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Remineralizing agents may improve demineralized enamel before orthodontic bonding without significantly affecting bracket bond strength.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42758355What 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.