ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2018
Evaluation of physical-mechanical properties, antibacterial effect, and cytotoxicity of temporary restorative materials.
Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of acidity on the physicochemical properties of two hydraulic calcium silicate-based cements and two calcium phosphate silicate-based cements.BMC oral health · 2023Trial
- Article
- In vitro assessment of cytotoxic, genotoxic, and antimicrobial properties of pediatric restorative dental materials.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties and Color Stability of Dental Resin Composites for Chairside Provisional Restorations.Polymers · 2024Article
- Antibiofilm and antimicrobial activity of temporary filling materials on root canals: an in situ acid challenge.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2023Article
- Novel Magnetic Composite Materials for Dental Structure Restoration Application.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Properties of Three Resin-Based Dental Composites againstMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- In Vitro Studies concerning Selected Properties of a Composite Material Blended with Nanofluoroapatite Crystals.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The Benefits of Smart Nanoparticles in Dental Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Surface roughness, plaque accumulation, and cytotoxicity of provisional restorative materials fabricated by different methods.PloS one · 2021Article
- Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of the flow and filling ability of endodontic materials using different test models.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2020Article
- Cavity Bases Revisited.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2020Review
- In Vitro Evaluation of the Biological Effects of ACTIVA Kids BioACTIVE Restorative, Ionolux, and Riva Light Cure on Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare selective physical-mechanical properties, antibacterial effects and cytotoxicity of seven temporary restorative materials (TRM): five resin-based materials [Bioplic (B), Fill Magic Tempo (FM), Fermit inlay (F), Luxatemp LC (L) and Revotek LC (R)], and zinc oxide-eugenol cement (IRM) and glass ionomer cement (GIC) as the controls. Material and methods The physical-mechanical properties were evaluated by determining microleakage (ML), ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and Shore D hardness (SDH). In addition, the polymerization rate (Pr-1), depth of cure (DC), water sorption and solubility (WS/SL) were evaluated. The antimicrobial effects of the materials were assessed by biofilm accumulation of Streptococcus mutans (BT) and the direct contact test (DCT) by exposure to Enterococcus faecalis for 1 and 24 h, and cytotoxicity by MTT assay. The data were analyzed by ANOVA or Kruskall-Wallis tests, and a complementary post-hoc method (p<0.05). Results Group B, followed by FM and GIC had significantly lower percentages of microleakage in comparison with the other groups; Groups FM and L showed the highest WS, while Groups R and FM showed the significantly lowest SL values (p<0.05). Group R showed the statistically highest UTS mean and the lowest DC mean among all groups. Group F showed the lowest S. mutans biofilm accumulation (p=0.023). Only the Group L showed continued effect against E. faecalis after 1 h and 24 h in DCT. The L showed statistically lower viability cell when compared to the other groups. Conclusions These findings suggest the antibacterial effect of the temporary materials Fill Magic and Bioplic against S. mutans, while Luxatemp showed in vitro inhibition of S. mutans biofilm accumulation and E. faecalis growth. Regarding the cell viability test, Luxatemp was the most cytotoxic and Fill Magic was shown to be the least cytotoxic.
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.