Cited by 13

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Formation of Caries-Like Lesions in vitro on the Root Surfaces of Human Teeth in Solutions Simulating Plaque Fluid

Shellis, R.P.·2010·Caries Research

Abstract

Lesion formation on root surfaces of human posterior teeth was studied in acetate/lactate buffers with a background electrolyte composition based on plaque fluid analyses. Lesion depth after 28 days at 37°C was measured in relation to: the presence or absence of cementum; the concentration of undissociated buffer; the presence or absence of magnesium ions at plaque fluid concentration. Each factor was evaluated at several values of –log(ion activity product for hydroxyapatite): pI HA. Solutions were formulated to minimize variation in pH, which varied by ≤0.03 for a given comparison (individual pI HA) and by 0.42–0.82 over the range of pI HA within experiments. Lesions on surfaces from which cementum had been ground were significantly deeper than on intact surfaces, but this is considered to be due to subsurface mechanical damage and not to a solubility difference. Neither the concentration of undissociated buffer nor the presence of magnesium ions significantly affected lesion depth. Lesion depth was strongly influenced by the correlated variations in pI HA and pH. At pI HA 54 and 55, only extremely shallow lesions formed. From pI HA 56, lesion depth increased with increasing pI HA. The results confirm that the solubility of the mineral of root tissues is higher than that of hydroxyapatite, but indicate that it is probably lower than suggested by Hoppenbrouwers et al. [Arch Oral Biol 1987;32:319–322]. For calcium concentrations of 3–12 m M, the critical pH for root tissue mineral was calculated as 5.22–5.66 assuming solubility equivalent to pI HA 54 and 5.08–5.51 assuming pI HA 55.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000318224

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Caries progress is faster in dentine than in enamel, and under the same cariogenic challenge dentine is more susceptible to demineralization than enamel.

    “Nevertheless, caries progress is faster in dentine than in enamel [4] because dentine has a higher organic matrix percentage [5], higher permeability [6], and smaller crystals with higher carbonate concentration [7], resulting in a higher critical pH for dentine than for enamel demineralization [8–10].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. 10.1177%2F00220345960750111301 · DOI
  2. 10.1126%2Fscience.112.2899.84-a · DOI
  3. 10.1191%2F096228099673819272 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1159%2F000016484 · DOI
  5. 10.1159%2F000260541 · DOI
  6. 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2866%2990105-1 · DOI
  7. 10.1159%2F000259733 · DOI
  8. 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2889%2990105-2 · DOI
  9. 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2887%2990085-9 · DOI
  10. 10.1159%2F000095652 · DOI
  11. 10.1177%2F00220345920710110301 · DOI
  12. 10.1159%2F000261582 · DOI
  13. 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2893%2990197-T · DOI
  14. 10.1111%2Fj.1834-7819.2000.tb00238.x · DOI
  15. 10.1111%2Fj.1834-7819.2000.tb00248.x · DOI
  16. 10.1177%2F00220345960750040401 · DOI
  17. 10.1177%2F00220345750540040601 · DOI
  18. 10.1159%2F000261547 · DOI
  19. 10.1159%2F000261614 · DOI
  20. 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2896%2900140-9 · DOI
  21. 10.1159%2F000262377 · DOI
  22. 10.1111%2Fj.1600-0722.1995.tb01858.x · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1159%2F000016444 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2884%2990003-7 · DOI
  25. 10.1159%2F000260669 · DOI
  26. 10.1177%2F00220345980770031101 · DOI
  27. 10.1111%2Fj.1600-0714.1985.tb00538.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shellis, R. P.
Venue
Caries Research
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2010
Volume
44
Issue
4
Pages
380-389
ISSN
  • 0008-6568
  • 1421-976X
Cited by
13
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