ArticlePloS one2026
The reinforcing effect of anti-caries treatments on acidic challenge resistance of irradiated enamel.
Article in PloS one, 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
aimTo investigate the effect of applying the following anticaries treatments on the surface microhardness (SMH) of irradiated enamel after pH-cycling: Nanohydroxyapatite (nano-HA), resin infiltration (RI), combination of nano-HA and RI, or curcumin-loaded mesoporous nano-silica (Cur/MSN). METHODOLOGY: In this in vitro experimental study, 30 sound molars were mesiodistally sectioned into two halves, yielding 60 enamel samples, and randomly divided into six groups (n = 10). Group 1 was kept as non-irradiated. The samples from the other five groups were subjected to fractionated X-ray radiation for 6 weeks, with a total dose of 60 Gy, delivered in 2 Gy fractions 5 days per week. After irradiation, each group was processed as follows: 2) no treatment; 3) treated with 15% nano-HA; 4) treated with RI; 5) treated with a combination of 15% nano-HA and RI; 6) treated with Cur/MSN (3 mg/ml). The initial SMH (SMH0) was measured after irradiation and the final (SMH1) after anticaries treatments and pH cycling. pH cycling consisted of a 3-hour immersion in a demineralizing solution, followed by 21 hours in a remineralization solution at 37 °C for 5 days. The surface micromorphology of irradiated groups after pH-cycling was assessed.
resultsMean [±SD] SMH0 of irradiated enamel was significantly lower than that of the non-irradiated one (330.7 ± 23.6 vs 262.9 ± 28.8; P < 0.001). Irradiated enamels treated with all anti-caries treatments showed a significantly higher SMH1 compared to those of no-treatment (192.2 ± 28.7; all P < 0.01). SMH1 of Ir/nano-HA (302.2 ± 16.4) or Ir/nano-HA + RI (305.4 ± 22.1) groups were higher than those of Ir/RI (245.5 ± 35.1; P < 0.001) and not different from Ir/Cur/MSN group (285.9 ± 16.4; P = 0.638 and 0.435 respectively). The increase in SMH1 compared to SMH0 (ΔSMH) was significant only in Ir/nano-HA (39.0; P = 0.003) and Ir/nano-HA + RI groups (42.9; P = 0.001).
conclusionTreatment with nano-HA and a combination of nano-HA with RI demonstrated significant potential to improve the resistance of the irradiated enamel surface to acidic challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.