Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27891466›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016

An In-vitro Evaluation of Retention, Colonization and Penetration of Commonly Used Denture Lining Materials By

Sushma Krishnamurthy, Rajendra B Hallikerimath

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review of the Anti-Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Effect ofMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sushma KrishnamurthySenior Lecturer, Deparment of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Maratha Mandal's NGH Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Centre , Belgaum, Karnataka, India .
Rajendra B HallikerimathProfessor and Head, Deparment of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Maratha Mandal's NGH Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Centre , Belgaum, Karnataka, India .
KLE University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionColonization of the surface by

aimWe evaluated retention, colonization and penetration of the four denture lining materials namely Molloplast B, Permaflex, GC Soft Liner and Ufi Gel Hard C by MATERIAL AND

methodsa) Evaluation of retention: Five test discs of each material with smooth surface on one side and rough on the other were prepared and surface roughness (Ra) was measured with profilometer. Retention of

resultsa) All rough surfaces showed higher retention of

conclusiona) Smoother surfaces retain fewer cells than rough surfaces; b) Denture lining materials permit infiltration of

Indexed as

AdherenceAntifungalCandida albicansDenture stomatitisResilient liner

Identifiers

PMID27891466
PMCPMC5121812
OpenAlexW2558262607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.