Cited by 117

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Starch and Sucrose on Dental Biofilm Formation and on Root Dentine Demineralization

Aires, C.P., Del Bel Cury, A.A., Tenuta, L.M.A., Klein, M.I., Koo, H., Duarte, S., Cury, J.A.·2008·Caries Research

Abstract

The cariogenicity of starch alone or in combination with sucrose is controversial and the effect on dentine demineralization and on the dental biofilm formed has not been explored under controlled conditions. A crossover, single-blind study was conducted in four steps of 14 days each, during which 11 volunteers wore palatal appliance containing 10 slabs of root dentine to which the following treatments were applied extraorally: 2% starch gel-like solution (starch group); 10% sucrose solution (sucrose group); a solution containing 2% starch and 10% sucrose (starch + sucrose group), or 2% starch solution followed by 10% sucrose solution (starch → sucrose group). On the 14th day of each phase the biofilms were collected for biochemical and microbiological analyses, and dentine demineralization was assessed by hardness. A higher demineralization was found in dentine exposed to sucrose and starch sucrose combinations than to starch alone (p < 0.01), but the sucrose-containing groups did not differ significantly from each other (p > 0.05). The concentrations of soluble and insoluble extracellular polysaccharides (EPS), and the proportion of insoluble EPS, were lower in the biofilm formed in presence of starch (p < 0.01) than in those formed in the presence of sucrose or sucrose/starch combinations; however, no significant difference was observed among the groups containing sucrose (p > 0.05). RNA was successfully isolated and purified from in situ biofilms and only biofilms formed in response to sucrose and starch/sucrose combinations showed detectable levels of gtf B and gtf C mRNA. The findings suggest that the combination of starch with sucrose may not be more cariogenic to dentine than sucrose alone.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000154783

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The use of surface hardness as an indicator of dentine mineral loss has been widely employed because there is a high correlation with transversal microradiography, which directly quantifies demineralization in dental enamel and also in dentine.

    “About the use of surface hardness as indicator of dentine mineral loss, it has been widely employed [25, 33, 34, 36, 39, 56–59] because there is a high correlation with transversal microradiography [25], which directly quantifies demineralization in dental enamel and also in dentine [60].”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. 10.1159%2F000059331 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1177%2F154411130201300203 · DOI
  3. 10.1159%2F000096100 · DOI
  4. 10.1016%2Fj.ab.2007.03.021 · DOI
  5. 10.1159%2F000262418 · DOI
  6. 10.1159%2F000016629 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1111%2Fj.1399-302X.2007.00412.x · DOI
  8. 10.1021%2Fac60111a017 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1159%2F000260692 · DOI
  10. 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2882%2990026-7 · DOI
  11. 10.1016%2Fj.mam.2005.12.003 · DOI
  12. 10.1177%2F154405910208100205 · DOI
  13. 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2873%2990109-X · DOI
  14. 10.1159%2F000077757 · DOI
  15. 10.1159%2F000072165 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1177%2F10454411970080020601 · DOI
  17. 10.1016%2FS0003-9969%2898%2900123-X · DOI
  18. 10.1128%2FAAC.50.2.542-546.2006 · DOI
  19. 10.1093%2Fglycob%2F7.7.929 · DOI
  20. 10.1177%2F10454411000110030601 · DOI
  21. 10.1159%2F000260514 · DOI
  22. 10.1159%2F000261125 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1159%2F000083157 · DOI
  24. 10.1079%2FBJN20051452 · DOI
  25. 10.1099%2Fjmm.0.47146-0 · DOI
  26. 10.1159%2F000095656 · DOI
  27. 10.1159%2F000091065 · DOI
  28. 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2895%2900129-8 · DOI
  29. 10.1046%2Fj.1440-1711.2001.01002.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Aires, C. P., Del Bel Cury, A. A., Tenuta, L. M. A., Klein, M. I., Koo, H., Duarte, S., & Cury, J. A.
Venue
Caries Research
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2008
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
380-386
ISSN
  • 0008-6568
  • 1421-976X
Cited by
117
References
1
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