Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 15

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effects of fluoride‐ and chlorhexidine‐containing varnishes on plaque composition and on demineralization of dentinal grooves in situ

Zaura‐Arite, E., Ten Cate, J. M.·2000·European Journal of Oral Sciences

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of Cervitec, containing 1% chlorhexidine (CHX) and 1% thymol, Fluor Protector, containing 0.1% fluoride, their 1:1 mixture, and a placebo varnish on the percentage of mutans streptococci and lactobacilli in plaque and on the underlying dentin demineralization, as assessed by microradiography. Bovine dentine discs, fitted with three parallel grooves, received one of the varnish treatments into the first groove and on the adjacent part of the dentin surface. Volunteers (n=23) wore the discs fixed to their partial dentures for four consecutive 3 wk periods. Microbiological analysis of plaque accumulated in the grooves showed no difference between groups. Fluoride varnishes (Fluor Protector and mixed varnish) had a significantly larger inhibitory effect on mineral loss in the treated groove than Cervitec or placebo. All treatment varnishes had more pronounced effect in panelists (n=14) with higher degree of demineralization (mineral loss in placebo group ≥1,200 vol%×μm). In these panelists, CHX‐containing varnishes showed an inhibitory effect on demineralization in all grooves, also in the two non‐varnished grooves. As fluoride varnishes had the largest localized effect on demineralization, and CHX varnishes were showing a peripheral effect, a combined treatment could be the preferred method to obtain an optimal caries preventive effect in caries‐prone individuals.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1034/j.1600-0722.2000.00779.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Zaura‐Arite, E., & Ten Cate, J. M.
Venue
European Journal of Oral Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-04
Volume
108
Issue
2
Pages
154-161
ISSN
  • 0909-8836
  • 1600-0722
Cited by
15
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.