ArticleDental research journal2014
Comparative evaluation of photodynamic therapy induced by two different photosensitizers in rat experimental candidiasis.
Article in Dental research journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Photodynamic therapy of oral Candida infection in a mouse model.Journal of photochemistry and photobiology. B, Biology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) depends on both the photosensitizer (PS) and laser parameters. In the present study, antimicrobial effectiveness of PDT with different concentrations of two PSs was compared. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study, we employed fifty-nine 6-week-old male Wistar rats. All except the negative and overall control groups were immunosuppressed and then orally inoculated with a suspension of Candida albicans (9 × 10(8) CFU/ml). At 4 days after oral inoculation, swabbing of tongue dorsum was performed to recover yeast from the tongue before treatment; on the next day, PDT was carried out on tongue dorsums by use of different concentrations of methylene blue (MB) or poly-L-lysine-chlorine (e6) conjugate (pL-ce6) as PS; followed by a 10 min diode laser illumination at 660 nm (n = 6 each). Then, sampling was again performed. The difference between yeast recovery before and after treatment was compared between the groups by one-way analysis of variance test (α = 0.05). After sacrificing the animals, their tongues were surgically removed and processed for histological evaluation of the presence of yeast and tissue reaction.
resultsPDT mediated by both PSs, regardless of the type and their concentration, resulted in a significant microbiological and histological reduction in C. albicans counts in comparison with positive control group (P < 0.001). There was no difference in epithelial lesions and inflammatory responses between groups.
conclusionPDT mediated MB or pL-ce6 is a promising approach for treatment of oral candidiasis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25225558PMC4163823W1499701353What 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.