Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27486437›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2016

Devices for In situ Development of Non-disturbed Oral Biofilm. A Systematic Review.

Isabel Prada-López, Víctor Quintas, Carlos Vilaboa, David Suárez-Quintanilla, Inmaculada Tomás

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A New Device for3D printing and additive manufacturing · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Oral Biofilm Formation on Different Materials for Dental Implants.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2018
    Article
  10. Journal of oral microbiology · 2018
    Article
  11. Antibiofilm peptides against oral biofilms.Journal of oral microbiology · 2017
    Article
  12. Frontiers in microbiology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Isabel Prada-LópezOral Sciences Research Group, Special Needs Unit, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela La Coruña, Spain.
Víctor QuintasOral Sciences Research Group, Special Needs Unit, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela La Coruña, Spain.
Carlos VilaboaDental Prosthesis Laboratory, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela La Coruña, Spain.
David Suárez-QuintanillaOral Sciences Research Group, Special Needs Unit, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela La Coruña, Spain.
Inmaculada TomásOral Sciences Research Group, Special Needs Unit, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela La Coruña, Spain.
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this review was to assess the types of devices used for in situ development of oral biofilm analyzed microbiologically. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify all in situ studies of oral biofilm which used an oral device; the Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases complemented with manual search were used. Specific devices used to microbiologically analyze oral biofilm in adults were included. After reading of the selected full texts, devices were identified and classified according to the oral cavity zone and manufacturing material. The "ideal" characteristics were analyzed in every group.

resultsThe search provided 787 abstracts, of which 111 papers were included. The devices used in these studies were classified as palatal, lingual or buccal. The last group was sub-classified in six groups based on the material of the device. Considering the analyzed characteristics, the thermoplastic devices and the Intraoral Device of Overlaid Disk-holding Splints (IDODS) presented more advantages than limitations.

conclusionsBuccal devices were the most commonly used for the study of in situ biofilm. The majority of buccal devices seemed to slightly affect the volunteer's comfort, the IDODS being the closest to the "ideal" model. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: New devices for in situ oral biofilm microbiological studies should take into account the possible effect of their design on the volunteer's comfort and biofilm formation.

Indexed as

biofilmdental plaquedevice designin situsplints

Identifiers

PMID27486437
PMCPMC4949230
OpenAlexW2489102413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.