ArticleDental research journal2010
Bacterial adhesion of porphyromonas gingivalis on provisional fixed prosthetic materials.
Article in Dental research journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of CAD/CAM and Conventional Provisional Restorative Materials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Biocompatibility and biofilm formation on conventional and CAD/CAM provisional implant restorations.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Piranha-etched titanium nanostructure reduces biofilm formation in vitro.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- HowMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Comparative Analysis of Biofilm Formation on Materials Used for the Fabrication of Implant Supported Prostheses.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2022Article
- Article
- Evaluation ofThe journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2017Article
- Evaluation of hardness and wear resistance of interim restorative materials.Dental research journal · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen provisional restorations are worn for long term period, the adhesion of bacteria becomes a primary factor in the development of periodontal diseases. The aims of this study were to evaluate the surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of four different provisional fixed prosthodon-tic materials.
methodsTen cylindrical specimens were prepared from bis-acrylic composites (PreVISION CB and Protemp 3 Garant), a light-polymerized composite (Revotek LC), and a polymethyl methacrylate-based (Dentalon) provisional fixed prosthodontic materials. Surface roughness was assessed by profilometry. The bacterial adhesion test was applied using Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis) and spectro-fluorometric method. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Dunnett t-tests.
resultsAll tested materials were significantly rougher than glass (P < 0.05). Revotek LC had the greatest fluorescence intensity, PreVISION and Protemp 3 Garant had moderate values and all of them had significantly more bacterial adhesion compared to glass (P < 0.05). Dentalon had the lowest fluorescence intensity among the provisional fixed prosthodontic materials.
conclusionThe quantity of bacterial adhesion and surface roughness differed among the assessed provisional fixed prosthodontic materials. The light-polymerized provisional material Revotek LC had rougher surface and more bacterial adhesion compared with the others.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21448445PMC3065340What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.