Cited by 28

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effect of Fluoridated Milk on Enamel and Root Dentin Demineralization Evaluated by a Biofilm Caries Model

Giacaman, R.A., Muñoz, M.J., Ccahuana-Vasquez, R.A., Muñoz-Sandoval, C., Cury, J.A.·2012·Caries Research

Abstract

Although some studies suggest an anticaries effect of fluoridated bovine milk (F-milk) on enamel, evidence is still considered weak. Even more uncertain, the effect of F-milk on root caries remains largely unknown. This study evaluated the effect of F-milk on enamel and on root dentin demineralization using a validated Streptococcus mutans biofilm model, simulating a high cariogenic challenge. S. mutans (UA159) biofilms were formed on bovine enamel and root dentin saliva-coated slabs after measuring initial surface microhardness (SH). Biofilms were exposed to 10% sucrose 8×/day and treated 2×/day with either: (1) 0.9% NaCl (negative control), (2) bovine milk, (3) F-milk (5.0 ppm F as NaF) or (4) NaF 0.05% (anticaries-positive control). Medium pH was monitored twice/day, as a biofilm acidogenicity indicator. After 5 days for enamel and 4 days for dentin, biofilms were recovered to analyze: biomass, soluble proteins, viable microorganisms, and extra- and intracellular polysaccharides. Enamel and dentin demineralization were estimated by percentage of SH loss. Results were compared by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Neither acidogenicity nor biofilm composition differed among treatment groups in biofilms formed on enamel or dentin (p > 0.05). F-milk, however, significantly reduced enamel and dentin demineralization when compared with the negative control (p < 0.05). Also, F-milk was as efficient as 0.05% NaF to reduce enamel (p > 0.05), but not dentin demineralization (p < 0.05). These findings suggest that milk containing 5.0 ppm of fluoride is effective to control enamel caries and that it may be effective on root dentin caries prevention.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000339428

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. 10.1159%2F000154783 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016%2FS0003-9969%2803%2900087-6 · DOI
  3. 10.1177%2F146642408510500304 · DOI
  4. 10.1542%2Fpeds.2004-2462 · DOI
  5. 10.1159%2F000261581 · DOI
  6. 10.1159%2F000057864 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1590%2FS1806-83242010000200002 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1159%2F000096100 · DOI
  9. 10.1159%2F000016629 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1159%2F000262418 · DOI
  11. 10.1021%2Fac60111a017 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1007%2Fs00784-006-0053-4 · DOI
  13. 10.1177%2F00220345010800101701 · DOI
  14. 10.1016%2Fj.jdent.2011.08.016 · DOI
  15. 10.1111%2Fj.1754-4505.2005.tb01421.x · DOI
  16. 10.1177%2F08959374950090020701 · DOI
  17. 10.1159%2F000016453 · DOI
  18. 10.1093%2Fjac%2Fdkg449 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1159%2F000261597 · DOI
  20. 10.1007%2FBF03262681 · DOI
  21. 10.1111%2Fj.1752-7325.2004.tb02735.x · DOI
  22. 10.1016%2FS0168-6445%2802%2900143-2 · DOI
  23. 10.1136%2Fbmj.321.7265.855 · DOI
  24. 10.1177%2F08959374950090020301 · DOI
  25. 10.1016%2Fj.archoralbio.2010.12.012 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1159%2F000057589 · DOI
  27. 10.1128%2FAEM.66.4.1720-1723.2000 · DOI
  28. 10.1007%2Fs00103-009-0835-3 · DOI
  29. 10.1159%2F000016600 · DOI
  30. 10.1177%2F0022034510383428 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1038%2Fsj.ebd.6400578 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Giacaman, R. A., Muñoz, M. J., Ccahuana-Vasquez, R. A., Muñoz-Sandoval, C., & Cury, J. A.
Venue
Caries Research
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2012
Volume
46
Issue
5
Pages
460-466
ISSN
  • 0008-6568
  • 1421-976X
Cited by
28
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