ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2020
Description of
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding the Effect of Propolis and Its Derivatives AgainstJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Antibacterial and Anti-Inflammatory Properties ofScientifica · 2026Article
- Propolis characterization and antimicrobial activities againstSaudi journal of biological sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextDental caries is a major and chronic dental public health problem, which can usually be prevented by regular oral hygiene. The most common oral hygiene practice is brushing teeth with a dentifrice. Propolis has emerged as a promising anti-cariogenic agent, which is considered to be a good oral antiseptic for prevention of caries. Several studies have shown that the use of C has an influence in the growth of oral biofilms. There are several standard methods used to count bacterial colonies, such as crystal violet and CFU Count assays. OpenCFU method is a technique that can be used to calculate biofilm colonies more faster, precisely, and accurately.
aimTo compare several methods for evaluating the number of biofilm colonies formed with exposure to a standard dentifrice and propolis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Biofilm assays were carried out on 96-well microplates. Reference strains of oral
resultsThe numbers of CFUs determined for all strains were similar in the standard-dentifrice group and propolis-dentifrice group, and were similar among the three methods: crystal violet staining, manual CFU count, and OpenCFU analysis.
conclusionOpenCFU analysis can be reliably used as a rapid and a more practical method to analyse the growth of oral microorganism biofilms. However, high digital image quality is required to provide an accurate analysis for colony counting.
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.