ArticleScientific reports2016
Improved secondary caries resistance via augmented pressure displacement of antibacterial adhesive.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Advancing antimicrobial strategies for managing oral biofilm infections.International journal of oral science · 2019Review
- Quaternary ammonium-based biomedical materials: State-of-the-art, toxicological aspects and antimicrobial resistance.Progress in polymer science · 2017Review
- Article
- Caries-resistant bonding layer in dentin.Scientific reports · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present in vitro study evaluated the secondary caries resistance potential of acid-etched human coronal dentin bonded using augmented pressure adhesive displacement in conjunction with an experimental antibacterial adhesive. One hundred and twenty class I cavities were restored with a commercial non-antibacterial etch-and-rinse adhesive (N) or an experimental antibacterial adhesive (A) which was displaced by gentle air-blow (G) or augmented pressure air-blow (H). After bonding and restoration with resin composite, the resulted 4 groups (N-G, N-H, A-G and A-H) were exposed to Streptococcus mutans biofilm for 4, 8, 15, 20 or 25 days. The development of secondary caries in the bonding interface was then examined by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data acquired from 15, 20 and 25 days of artificial caries induction were analyzed with three-way ANOVA at α = 0.05. The depth of the artificial carious lesions was significantly affected by "adhesive type" (Single Bond 2 vs experimental antibacterial adhesive p = 0.003), "intensity of adhesive displacement" (gentle vs augmented-pressure adhesive displacement; p < 0.001), as well as "artificial caries induction time" (p < 0.001). The combined use of augmented pressure adhesive displacement and experimental antibacterial adhesive reduces the progression of secondary caries.
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.