MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408467961 · doi:10.1007/s10856-025-06867-6

Reactivity of aragonite with dicalcium phosphate facilitates removal of dental calculus

2025· article· en· W4408467961 on OpenAlexaff
Amir A. El hadad, Tayebeh Basiri, Ashwaq A. Al‐Hashedi, Sophia Smith, Hanan Moussa, Eva Ma Pérez Soriano, Faleh Tamimi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Materials in Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMcGill University
FundersQatar National Library
KeywordsCalculus (dental)Materials scienceEnamel paintDentistryComposite materialMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dental calculus, a main contributor of periodontal diseases, is mostly composed of inorganic calcium phosphate species such as dicalcium phosphate, whitlockite, octa calcium phosphate, and hydroxyapatite. Under physiological pH 7.4, dicalcium phosphates can gradually interact with calcium carbonate to form hydroxyapatite. Therefore, we hypothesized that aragonite (Arg) could react with dental calculus, facilitating its removal. To assess the reactivity of Arg with dental calculus, we examined the changes in surface morphology, composition, and topography of Arg and dental calculus upon exposure to each other in an aqueous environment. The impact of Arg on the removal of dental calculus was assessed by brushing polished sections of dental calculus, enamel, and dentin with slurries of Arg and measuring the depth of abrasion using a stylus profilometer. Our results demonstrate that Arg can react with dental calculus in aqueous environment. This reaction increases calculus surface roughness which in turn facilitate dental calculus removal by brushing. Aragonite could be a promising abrasive for toothpaste design for management of dental calculus.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science Materials in MedicineSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207