Cited by 1

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The strip method and the microelectrode technique in assessing dental plaque pH

Cocco, Fabio, Cagetti, Maria G., Lingström, Peter, Camoni, Nicole, Campus, Guglielmo·2017·Minerva Dental and Oral Science

Abstract

Background The pH strip method has been proposed for use in a clinical setting for the evaluation of dental plaque pH. The aim of this in-vivo study was to compare the reliability of the pH-indicator strip method to the microelectrode technique in plaque pH measurement. Methods 136 subjects (7-9 years) were enrolled and, for each subject, measurements of plaque pH were made at two interproximal sites; a total of 272 sites were analyzed. Plaque pH was assessed in triplicate using pH-indicator strips (pH range: 4.0-7.0) and an iridium microelectrode with a diameter of 0.1 mm. The caries status of 544 proximal surfaces between two primary molars, in proximity at the plaque pH sites, was assessed. All measurements were performed before and 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes after a mouth rinse with water solution of sucrose (10%). One-way ANOVA was performed to analyze statistically significant differences between the two techniques. Instrument reliability was measured by assessing the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results Comparable, not statistically significant pH values (P values range from 0.98 to 1.00) were obtained by the two methods for AUC5.7, AUC6.2, maximum pH fall and minimum pH. High intraclass coefficients were recorded (Pearson's r=0.96, Yule's Q=0.99), implying an almost perfect association when the measurements were grouped as a carious lesion being present or not on the surface near the site of measurement. Conclusions The use of the pH strip method has high…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.23736/s0026-4970.17.04093-6

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

Sorted by citations

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Cocco, F., Cagetti, M. G., Lingström, P., Camoni, N., & Campus, G.
Venue
Minerva Dental and Oral Science
Published
2017-11
Volume
66
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 2724-6329
  • 2724-6337
Cited by
1
References
0

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