Primary study · included by 1 review

Assessment of Enamel Remineralisation After Treatment with Four Different Remineralising Agents: A Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Study.

Soares 2017 · Soares Renita, De Ataide Ida De Noronha, Fernandes Marina, et al. · Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2017

PubMed 28571281 doi:10.7860/jcdr/2017/23594.9758Journal Article

Trial PICO

Not extracted yet. Trial-level population, intervention, comparator, outcomes and design will appear here after the trial extraction run. Until then, the reviews below describe the study.

Results

Not extracted yet. Per-trial results (events, means, effect and weight as each review's forest plot reports them) will appear here after the trial extraction run.

Included by

Evaluation of the efficacy of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate on remineralization of white spot lesions in vitro and clinical research: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2019 · cited as Soares 2017 · Table 2; Reference 30 (in vitro, Vickers microhardness)

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Enamel surface microhardness CPP-ACP agent (e.g., GC Tooth Mousse, GC Tooth Mousse Plus) vs Control (no treatment / negative control) · 6 hours to 30 days	SMD 1.19 [0.72, 1.66]	5 studies · 106 participants	Ungraded
Enamel surface microhardness CPP-ACP agent (e.g., GC Tooth Mousse, GC Tooth Mousse Plus, MI Paste Plus) vs Control (no treatment / negative control) · 6 hours to 30 days	SMD 2.07 [1.24, 2.89]	8 studies · 170 participants	Ungraded
Enamel surface microhardness CPP-ACP agent (e.g., GC Tooth Mousse, MI Paste Plus) vs Control (no treatment / negative control) · 5 to 7 days	SMD 3.52 [2.68, 4.36]	3 studies · 64 participants	Ungraded

1 including review in total.