Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31387578›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2019

Evaluation of antibacterial activity of propolis on regenerative potential of necrotic immature permanent teeth in dogs.

M M El-Tayeb, A M Abu-Seida, S H El Ashry, S A El-Hady

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Tissue Characteristics in Endodontic Regeneration: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Efficacy of propolis and triple antibiotic paste as intra-canal medicaments for revascularisation of immature teeth in dogs: a comparative study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Expert consensus on regenerative endodontic procedures.International journal of oral science · 2022
    Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M M El-TayebDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
A M Abu-SeidaDepartment of Surgery, Anesthesiology & Radiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cairo University, Giza Square, Giza, PO: 12211, Egypt. ashrafsida@cu.edu.eg.ORCID 0000-0001-5466-2016
S H El AshryDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
S A El-HadyDepartment of Microbiology & Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ain Shams University · EGCairo University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study evaluated the antibacterial efficiency and ability of propolis to promote regeneration of immature permanent non-vital dogs' teeth.

methodsNinety six immature permanent premolars teeth in 6 mongrel dogs were divided randomly into: experimental teeth (N = 72) and control teeth (N = 24). Periapical pathosis was induced in all experimental and positive control teeth. Experimental teeth were classified according to the used intra-canal medication into: group I (N = 36), propolis paste was used and group II (N = 36), triple antibiotic paste (TAP) was used. Bacteriologic samplings were collected before and after exposure to intra-canal medicaments. After the disinfection period (3 weeks), revascularization was induced in all experimental teeth. Each group was subdivided according to the root canal orifice plug into: subgroup A (N = 18), propolis paste was used and subgroup B (N = 18), mineral trioxide aggregates (MTA) was used. Each subgroup was further subdivided according to the evaluation period into 3 subdivisions (6 teeth each): subdivision 1; after 2 weeks, subdivision 2; after one month and subdivision 3; after 2 months. Positive control group had 12 teeth with induced untreated periapical pathosis. Negative control group had 12 untouched sound teeth. All teeth were evaluated with radiography and histology. The bacteriologic and radiographic data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests. The histologic data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni's adjustment and Chi-square test. The significance level was set at P ≤ .05.

resultsThere was no significant difference in the antibacterial effectiveness between TAP and propolis groups (P > .05). In all subdivisions, there was no significant difference between the experimental groups in terms of increase in root length and dentin thickness, decrease in apical closure, new hard tissue formation, vital tissue formation inside the pulp canal and apical closure scores (P > .05).

conclusionPropolis can be comparable with TAP as a disinfection treatment option in regenerative endodontic. As a root canal orifice plug after revascularization of necrotic immature permanent teeth in dogs, propolis induces a progressive increase in root length and dentin thickness and a decrease in apical diameter similar to those of MTA.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDental PulpDental Pulp NecrosisDentinDogsPeriapical TissuePropolisRandom AllocationRegenerative EndodonticsRoot Canal IrrigantsRoot Canal TherapyTooth ApexTooth RootTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsPropolisRoot Canal IrrigantsApical closureDentin thicknessPropolis, regenerative endodonticRoot lengthTriple antibiotic paste

Identifiers

PMID31387578
PMCPMC6685241
OpenAlexW2966207029

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.