ArticleScientific reports2016
Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Multispecies Oral Biofilm Resistance to Chlorhexidine Treatment.
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 35 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- An oxygen-releasing mouthwash shows species-dependent antibacterial and antibiofilm activity against periodontal pathogens.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Role of sucrose-dependent exopolysaccharides in the biofilm development ofApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- The Effect of Chlorhexidine Mouthwashes on the Microbiota Associated with Peri-Implantitis Lesions: A Pilot Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Antibiofilm potential of plant extracts: inhibiting oral microorganisms andFrontiers in dental medicine · 2025Article
- The emerging challenge ofClinical microbiology reviews · 2024Review
- Multifunctional Properties of BMAP-18 and Its Aliphatic Analog against Drug-Resistant Bacteria.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Numerical and experimental investigation of multi-species bacterial co-aggregation.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Dual effectiveness of a novel all-in-one endodontic irrigating solution in antibiofilm activity and smear layer removal.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the antibacterial activity ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Article
- In vitro evaluation of the antibacterial effect of four root canal sealers on dental biofilms.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
- The human oral virome: Shedding light on the dark matter.Periodontology 2000 · 2021Review
- The use of host defense peptides in root canal therapy in rats.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Article
- Recent Development of Active Ingredients in Mouthwashes and Toothpastes for Periodontal Diseases.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Antibacterial Effect of High-Purity Nisin Alone and in Combination with D-Amino Acids or Chlorhexidine in an Endodontic-Like Biofilm Model.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Microbiological Aspects of Root Canal Infections and Disinfection Strategies: An Update Review on the Current Knowledge and Challenges.Frontiers in oral health · 2021Review
- Chemical and mechanical influence of root canal irrigation on biofilm removal from lateral morphological features of simulated root canals, dentine discs and dentinal tubules.International endodontic journal · 2021Article
- DexA70, the Truncated Form of a Self-Produced Dextranase, Effectively DisruptsFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Article
- The influence of time and irrigant refreshment on biofilm removal from lateral morphological features of simulated root canals.International endodontic journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We investigate recovery of multispecies oral biofilms following chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) and CHX with surface modifiers (CHX-Plus) treatment. Specifically, we examine the percentage of viable bacteria in the biofilms following their exposure to CHX and CHX-Plus for 1, 3, and 10 minutes, respectively. Before antimicrobial treatment, the biofilms are allowed to grow for three weeks. We find that (a). CHX-Plus kills bacteria in biofilms more effectively than the regular 2% CHX does, (b). cell continues to be killed for up to one week after exposure to the CHX solutions, (c). the biofilms start to recover after two weeks, the percentage of the viable bacteria recovers in the 1 and 3 minutes treatment groups but not in the 10 minutes treatment group after five weeks, and the biofilms fully return to the pretreatment levels after eight weeks. To understand the mechanism, a mathematical model for multiple bacterial phenotypes is developed, adopting the notion that bacterial persisters exist in the biofilms together with regulatory quorum sensing molecules and growth factor proteins. The model reveals the crucial role played by the persisters, quorum sensing molecules, and growth factors in biofilm recovery, accurately predicting the viable bacterial population after CHX treatment.
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.