Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32168534›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2020

In Vivo Biocompatibility, Mechanical, and Antibacterial Properties of Cements Modified with Propolis in Different Concentrations.

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

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

Article in European journal of dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Antimicrobial activity and toxicity of glass ionomer cement containing an essential oil.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2020
    Article
  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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Izaura Helena Chaves de MenesesDepartment of Clinical and Social Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil.
Gêisa Aiane de Morais SampaioDepartment of Clinical and Social Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil.
Fabiola Galbiatti de CarvalhoDepartment of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Hugo Lemes CarloDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Eliseu Aldrighi MünchowDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Matheus Melo PithonDepartment of Orthodontics, Dental School, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Polliana Muniz AlvesDepartment of Pathology, Dental School, State University of Paraíba, Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil.
Rogério Lacerda-SantosDepartment of Orthodontics, Dental School, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora · BRUniversidade Federal da Paraíba · BRSouthwest Bahia State University · BRUniversidade Estadual da Paraíba · BRUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe focus of this triple-blind randomized study was to evaluate the mechanical properties, antibacterial effect, and MATERIALS AND

methodsFor biocompatibility tests, 135 male Wistar rats were used and divided into nine groups: Group C (control, polyethylene), Groups M, M10, M25, M50 (Meron; conventional, and modified with 10%, 25%, 50% EEP, respectively), Groups KC, KC10, KC25, KC50 (Ketac Cem; conventional, and modified with 10%, 25%, 50% EEP, respectively). The tissues were analyzed under an optical microscope for different cellular events in different time intervals. Shear bond strength test (SBST) on cementation of metal matrices ( STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn, and one-way analysis of variance test followed by Tukey's test (

resultsMorphological evaluation demonstrated intense inflammatory infiltrate in Groups M10 and KC10 in the time intervals of 7 (

conclusionsThe intensity of histological changes resulting from the cements was shown to be inversely proportional to the concentration of propolis added; Ketac 50%-EPP was the concentration that had the most favorable biocompatibility results. Addition of EEP to GIC did not negatively change the SBST and ARI. Antibacterial property demonstrated a concentration-dependent effect.

Identifiers

PMID32168534
PMCPMC7079564
OpenAlexW3012057279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.