Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30133673›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2018

Evaluation of physical-mechanical properties, antibacterial effect, and cytotoxicity of temporary restorative materials.

Sonia Luque Peralta, Sávio Bisinoto de Leles, André Lindemann Dutra, Victoria Burmann da Silva Guimarães, Evandro Piva, Rafael Guerra Lund

Open access · diamondAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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] · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Benefits of Smart Nanoparticles in Dental Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Cavity Bases Revisited.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2020
    Review
  13. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sonia Luque PeraltaDepartamento de Odontologia Restauradora,, Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brasil.
Sávio Bisinoto de LelesLaboratório de Microbiologia Oral, Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brasil.
André Lindemann DutraLaboratório de Microbiologia Oral, Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brasil.
Victoria Burmann da Silva GuimarãesDepartamento de Odontologia Restauradora,, Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brasil.
Evandro PivaDepartamento de Odontologia Restauradora,, Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brasil.
Rafael Guerra LundDepartamento de Odontologia Restauradora,, Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brasil.
Universidade Federal de Pelotas · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBisphenol A-Glycidyl MethacrylateCattleCell SurvivalComposite ResinsDental LeakageDental Restoration, TemporaryEnterococcus faecalisFibroblastsGlass Ionomer CementsHardness TestsMaterials TestingMethylmethacrylatesMicePolymethacrylic AcidsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBioplicBisphenol A-Glycidyl MethacrylateComposite ResinsFermitFill MagicGlass Ionomer CementsIRM cementluxatempMethylmethacrylatesPolymethacrylic AcidsRevotec LCRoot Canal Filling MaterialsT.E.R.M. composite resinZinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement

Identifiers

PMID30133673
PMCPMC6110458
OpenAlexW2885372634

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.