ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2020
Pellicle Modification with Casein and Mucin Does Not Promote In Vitro Bacterial Biofilm Formation.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Salivary Pellicle Modification with Grape-seed Extract: In Vitro Study on the Effect on Bacterial Adhesion and Biofilm Formation.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDuring biofilm formation, bacterial species do not attach directly onto the enamel surface, but rather onto the salivary pellicle. Salivary pellicle modification with casein and mucin can hinder erosive demineralisation of the enamel, but it should also not promote bacterial adhesion. The aim of our study was to assess whether salivary pellicle modification with casein, or mucin, or a mixture of both proteins (casein and mucin) influence bacterial adhesion, biofilm diversity, metabolism and composition, or enamel demineralisation, after incubation in: (a) a single bacterial model; (b) a five-species biofilm model; or (c) biofilm reformation using the five-species biofilm model after removal of initial biofilm with toothbrushing. MATERIALS AND
methodsEnamel specimens were prepared from human molars. Whole-mouth stimulated human saliva was used for pellicle formation. Four pellicle modification groups were established: control (non-modified pellicle); casein - modified with 0.5% casein; mucin - modified with 0.5% mucin; casein and mucin - modified with 0.5% casein and 0.5% mucin. Bacterial adhesion, biofilm diversity, metabolic activity, biofilm mass, and demineralisation (surface hardness) of enamel were assessed after incubation in bacterial broths after 6 h or 24 h.
resultsAfter 24 h incubation in the five-species biofilm model, the mucin group presented significantly lower biofilm mass than the control (p = 0.028) and the casein and mucin (p = 0.030) groups. No other differences between the groups were observed in any of the other experimental procedures.
conclusionPellicle modification with casein and mucin does not promote in vitro bacterial biofilm formation.
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.