Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32071700›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2020

Antimicrobial, mechanical and biocompatibility analysis of chlorhexidine digluconate-modified cements.

Gêisa-Aiane-de Morais Sampaio, Izaura-Helena-Chaves de Meneses, Fabiola-Galbiatti de Carvalho, Hugo-Lemes Carlo, Eliseu-Aldrighi Münchow, Taís-de Souza Barbosa, Matheus-Melo Pithon, Polliana-Muniz Alves, Rogério Lacerda-Santos

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The Effect ofInternational journal of dentistry · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Gêisa-Aiane-de Morais SampaioDDS. M.Sc. Department of Clinical and Social Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil.
Izaura-Helena-Chaves de MenesesDDS. M.Sc. Department of Clinical and Social Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil.
Fabiola-Galbiatti de CarvalhoDDS., M.Sc., Ph.D. Professor. Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of de Fora, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Hugo-Lemes CarloDDS., M.Sc., Ph.D. Professor. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of de Fora, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Eliseu-Aldrighi MünchowDDS., M.Sc., Ph.D. Professor. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of de Fora, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Taís-de Souza BarbosaDDS., M.Sc., Ph.D. Professor. Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of de Fora, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Matheus-Melo PithonDDS., M.Sc., Ph.D. Professor. Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, State University of the Southwest of Bahia, Jéquie, Bahia, Brazil.
Polliana-Muniz AlvesDDS., M.Sc., Ph.D. Professor. Department of Patology, Dental School, State University of Paraíba, Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil.
Rogério Lacerda-SantosDDS., M.Sc., Ph.D. Professor. Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of de Fora, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Delaware Division of Libraries · USUniversidade Estadual da Paraíba · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe focus of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial, mechanical properties and biocompatibility of glass ionomer (GICs) modified by Chlorhexidine (CHX). MATERIAL AND

methodsFor biocompatibility, 105 male Wistar rats were used, divided into 7 groups (n=15): Group C (Control,Polyethylene), Groups M, M10, M18, and Groups RL, RL10, RL18 (M-Meron and RL-Riva Luting: conventional, and modified with 10%, and 18% CHX, respectively). The tissues were analyzed under optical microscope for different cellular events and time intervals. Antibacterial effect and Shear Bond Strength Test (SBST) were also analyzed. Biocompatibility was analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests; SBST one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (

resultsMorphological study of the tissues showed inflammatory infiltrate with significant differences between Groups C and RL18, in the time intervals of 7(

conclusionsThe addition of CHX did not negatively influence the SBST. Meron-CHX-10% was the most biocompatible, and Riva-CHX-18% had more influence on the inflammatory process and presented slower tissue repair.

Identifiers

PMID32071700
PMCPMC7018482
OpenAlexW3003674637

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.