Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
Correction: A silk fibroin-based hydrogel desensitizer achieving 660 µm dentin tubule occlusion for dentin hypersensitivity treatment
Kuangdi Xinab,
Wanshan Gaoabcd,
Yulu Xiea,
Xiaohua Donga,
Lingshan Rana,
Tianyi Xiab,
Jing Xieb,
Jiaojiao Yangc,
Tao Hucd,
Jianshu Libc,
Xiaoyu Huang*e,
Rongmin Qiu*a and
Jun Luo*b
aCollege of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation and Reconstruction, Guangxi Clinical Research Center for Craniofacial Deformity, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Disease Treatment, Guangxi Health Commission Key Laboratory of Prevention and Treatment for Oral Infectious Diseases, Nanning 530021, P. R. China. E-mail: rongminqiu@hotmail.com
bCollege of Polymer Science and Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Advanced Polymer Materials, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610065, P. R. China. E-mail: luojuncd@scu.edu.cn
cState Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China
dNational Center for Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Frontier Innovation Center for Dental Medicine Plus, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China
eDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian Province, P. R. China. E-mail: hxy@fjmu.edu.cn
First published on 26th May 2026
Abstract
Correction for ‘A silk fibroin-based hydrogel desensitizer achieving 660 µm dentin tubule occlusion for dentin hypersensitivity treatment’ by Kuangdi Xin et al., Mater. Horiz., 2025, 12, 4177–4192, https://doi.org/10.1039/D4MH01927J.
The authors regret the inadvertent inclusion of an incorrect image as Fig. 5E2 in the published article. The corrected Fig. 5 is shown in this notice. The authors confirm that this does not affect any results, data interpretation or conclusions of the published article.
 | ||
| Fig. 5 Long-term assessment of DT occlusion efficacy by STU. (A) Schematic illustration of the pH cycling assessment of dentin slices. The model involved 8 h of exposure to artificial saliva (AS, pH 7.0) followed by 16 h in a demineralization solution (DS, pH 4.8) each day, in the subgroup, the demineralization solution was replaced with 2% ETDA solution. (B) Air pressure changes in the airtightness test over time. The error bars represent the mean ± SD for n = 5, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. (C)–(E) SEM images of dentin slices after ST or STU hydrogel treatment, with or without the brushing challenge. (C1) and (C3) Surface morphology of ST/STU-treated dentin; (C2) and (C4) Surface morphology of ST/STU-treated dentin with brushing; (D1) and (D3) Cross-sectional morphology of ST/STU-treated dentin; (D2) and (D4) Cross-sectional morphology of ST/STU-treated dentin with brushing; (E1) and (E2) Surface and cross-sectional morphology of brushed dentin treated with ST. (E3) and (E4) Surface and cross-sectional morphology of brushed dentin treated with STU. | ||
The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026 |