ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2017
Evaluation of
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of CAD/CAM and Conventional Provisional Restorative Materials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Surface Roughness and Microbial Adhesion on Four Provisional Prosthodontic Restorative Materials.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Nanotechnology meets medicine: applications of atomic force microscopy in disease.Biophysical reviews · 2025Review
- Article
- Antimicrobial activity of cleanser tablets against S. mutans and C. Albicans on different denture base materials.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Bacterial Adhesion on Different Long-Term Provisional Fixed Prostheses Fabricated by CAD/CAM Milling, 3D Printing, and Heat Cure Technique: AnJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Flexural strength, surface roughness, micro-CT analysis, and microbiological adhesion of a 3D-printed temporary crown material.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Article
- AnBiomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2023Article
- In vitro study of surface properties and microbial adhesion of various dental polymers fabricated by different manufacturing techniques after thermocycling.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
- Influence of the Manufacturing Method on the Adhesion ofPolymers · 2021Article
- Surface roughness, plaque accumulation, and cytotoxicity of provisional restorative materials fabricated by different methods.PloS one · 2021Article
- Physics Comes to the Aid of Medicine-Clinically-Relevant Microorganisms through the Eyes of Atomic Force Microscope.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Effect of different polishing techniques on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of three glass ionomer-based restorative materials:Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBacterial adhesion on provisional crown materials retained for a long time can influence the duration for which permanent prosthetic restorations can be healthily worn in the oral cavity. The aim of this study was to compare seven different commonly used provisional crown materials with regard to MATERIALS AND
methodsFor each group, twenty specimens of the provisional fixed prosthodontic materials TemDent (Schütz), Imıdent (Imıcryl), Tab 2000 (Kerr), Structur Premium (Voco), Systemp (Ivoclar Vivadent), Acrytemp (Zhermack), and Takilon-BBF (Takilon) were prepared (diameter, 10.0 mm; height, 2.0 mm). Surface roughness was assessed by atomic force microscopy. Each group was then divided into 2 subgroups (n=10) according to the microbial suspensions used:
results
conclusionThe materials showed significant differences in the degree of bacterial adhesion.
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.