ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Methodological Heterogeneity in Profilometric Assessment of Experimentally Demineralized Enamel as a Model of White Spot Lesions: A Systematic 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhite spot lesions (WSLs) are early enamel demineralization lesions associated with increased surface roughness and plaque retention. Profilometry is commonly used to evaluate these surface changes, although methodological variability remains significant.
objectiveTo critically evaluate the available evidence regarding the validity and reproducibility of profilometry for assessing surface roughness in experimentally induced WSL models and treatment-modified surfaces and to identify methodological factors influencing its application across in vitro studies.
methodsA systematic review of 27 in vitro studies published between 2021 and 2026 was conducted. Methodological characteristics of contact and non-contact profilometry were synthesized, and evidence relevant to validity and reproducibility was qualitatively assessed based on complementary analytical methods and the reporting of standardized measurement procedures.
resultsConsiderable heterogeneity was identified in specimen sample and preparation, demineralization protocols, profilometric systems, acquisition settings, roughness parameters, and experimental conditions. Both contact and non-contact profilometry detected treatment- and demineralization-related surface changes, with Ra being the most frequent reported parameter. Complementary analytical techniques provided supporting evidence for the interpretation of profilometric findings but did not constitute formal validation. Methodological details relevant to reproducibility were inconsistently reported, and formal repeatability or reproducibility testing was generally lacking, Conclusion: Profilometry appears useful for quantitatively characterizing surface topography in experimentally demineralized enamel as a model of WSLs and treatment-modified enamel; however, substantial methodological variability and limited formal validation and reproducibility testing prevent definitive conclusions regarding its validity and reproducibility. Greater standardization of methodologies of measurement and reporting protocols is required to improve comparability and strengthen the evidence base.
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.