Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Efficacy of nano-hydroxyapatite on caries prevention—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Efficacy of nano-hydroxyapatite on caries prevention—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Efficacy of nano-hydroxyapatite on caries prevention—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Efficacy of nano-hydroxyapatite on caries prevention—a systematic review and meta-analysis
2022
Overview
Abstract Introduction/objectivesThe review systematically explored in vivo or in situ studies investigating the efficacy of nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA) to reduce initiation of or to remineralize initial caries lesions.DataProspective controlled (non-)randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of a nHA compared to any other (placebo) treatment or untreated/standard control.SourcesThree electronic databases (Central Cochrane, PubMed-MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE) were screened. Outcomes were, e.g., ICDAS score, laser fluorescence, enamel remineralization rate, mineral loss, and lesion depth. No language or time restrictions were applied. Risk of bias and level of evidence were graded using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and GRADE profiler.Study selection/resultsFive in vivo (and 5 in situ) studies with at least 633 teeth (1031 specimens) being assessed in more than 420 (95) patients were included. No meta-analysis could be performed for in vivo studies due to the high heterogeneity of the study designs and the variety of outcomes. In situ studies indicate that under demineralization conditions, NaF was able to hinder demineralization, whereas nHA did not; simultaneously, nHA did not differ from the fluoride-free control. In contrast, under remineralizing conditions, nHA and NaF show the same remineralizing potential. However, the level of evidence was very low. Furthermore, six studies showed a high risk of bias, and six studies were funded/published by the manufacturers of the tested products.ConclusionThe low number of clinical studies, the relatively short follow-up periods, the high risks of bias, and the limiting grade of evidence do not allow for conclusive evidence on the efficacy of nHA.Clinical relevanceNo conclusive evidence on the efficacy of nHA could be obtained based on the low number of clinical studies, the relatively short follow-up periods, the high risks of bias, the limiting grade of evidence, and study conditions that do not reflect the everyday conditions.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
