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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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].”
From Validation of a Cariogenic Biofilm Model to Evaluate the Effect of Fluoride on Enamel and Root Dentine Demineralization (2016) · cites this paper as [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
- 10.1177%2F00220345960750111301 · DOI
- 10.1126%2Fscience.112.2899.84-a · DOI
- 10.1191%2F096228099673819272 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1159%2F000016484 · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000260541 · DOI
- 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2866%2990105-1 · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000259733 · DOI
- 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2889%2990105-2 · DOI
- 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2887%2990085-9 · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000095652 · DOI
- 10.1177%2F00220345920710110301 · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000261582 · DOI
- 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2893%2990197-T · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1834-7819.2000.tb00238.x · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1834-7819.2000.tb00248.x · DOI
- 10.1177%2F00220345960750040401 · DOI
- 10.1177%2F00220345750540040601 · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000261547 · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000261614 · DOI
- 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2896%2900140-9 · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000262377 · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1600-0722.1995.tb01858.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1159%2F000016444 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016%2F0003-9969%2884%2990003-7 · DOI
- 10.1159%2F000260669 · DOI
- 10.1177%2F00220345980770031101 · DOI
- 10.1111%2Fj.1600-0714.1985.tb00538.x · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fernández, C. E., Tenuta, L. M. A., & Cury, J. A. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146478 · Cited by 74
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