ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2013
Ex vivo study of bacterial coronal leakage in indirect pulp treatment.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chlorhexidine gluconate enhances the remineralization effect of high viscosity glass ionomer cement on dentin carious lesions in vitro.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- Comparison of fluid filtration and bacterial leakage techniques for evaluation of microleakage in endodontics.Dental research journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate, ex vivo, bacterial coronal leakage with different antimicrobial agents applied to the dentine for indirect pulp treatment (IPT). STUDY
designSixty extracted teeth were prepared and randomly distributed into 5 groups (n=10): Group 1: no antimicrobial dentine treatment; group 2: 1% chlorhexidine (CHX)+1% thymol varnish (Cervitec); group 3: 2 % CHX solution; group 4: 40% CHX varnish (EC40) and group 5: Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB). Ten teeth served as controls. The teeth were restored using a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GIC) and then mounted in a two-chamber device. The coronal access was exposed to Streptococcus mutans for 45 days. The appearance of turbidity in the BHI broth of the lower chamber was considered as specimen leakage.
resultsSurvival analysis, determined by non parametric Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests, showed that the best results were for groups EC40+GIC and GIC alone; yet there were not statistically significant differences between them. All specimens of CPB+GIC and 2% CHX+GIC, leaked at 45 days.
conclusionsIn IPT the use of GIC without pretreatment of the dentine and pretreatment with 40% CHX varnish resulted in a significant delay of bacterial coronal leakage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.