ArticlePloS one2020
In vitro evaluation of the effect of different disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus formed on acrylic ocular prostheses.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- TheMicroorganisms · 2024Article
- Effect of Extrinsic Pigmentation on Dimensional Stability, Hardness, Detail Reproduction, and Color of a Silicone.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Effect of Rehabilitation with a New Ocular Prosthesis on Electromyography of the Occipitofrontalis, Temporal, Masseter, and Sternocleidomastoid.European journal of dentistry · 2022Article
- Dentistry and Intensive Care Unit: A Brief Report.European journal of dentistry · 2022Article
- Biofilm-Forming Potential of Ocular FluidMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- Bacterial Burden Declines But Neutrophil Infiltration and Ocular Tissue Damage Persist in ExperimentalFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of disinfectants on the biofilm of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis formed on the acrylic surface of ocular prostheses. In this study, 396 acrylic specimens were manufactured (50% for Staphylococcus epidermidis, and 50% for Staphylococcus aureus). For each bacterium, 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 24 hours, 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 48 hours, and 66 specimens were subjected to biofilm formation on their surfaces for 72 hours. Then, they were divided into groups according to disinfection method (n = 6): sterile distilled water for 10, 15, 30 min, and 6 hours (control); soap for 30 min (NES30); Opti-Free for 30 min (OPF30) and 6 h (OPF6); Efferdent for 15 min (EFF15); and 0.5%, 2%, and 4% chlorhexidine for 10 min (0.5% CHX10, 2% CHX10, and 4% CHX10). After the treatments, the specimens were vortexed to release the biofilm and the counting of bacterial colonies was performed (CFU/mL). Three-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer HSD test were used (α = 0.05). For Staphylococcus epidermidis, there was no significant difference between NES30, OPF30, and OPF6 with their respective control groups; nor between NES30, OPF30, and OPF6 themselves, regardless of the biofilm development period (P >0.05). For Staphylococcus aureus, there was no significant difference between NES30 and OPF30 with their control group; nor between NES30 and OPF30 themselves, regardless of the biofilm development period (P >0.05). For Staphylococcus aureus, OPF6 showed a significant reduction in the number of CFU/mL when compared with its control group, NES30, and OPF30, regardless of the biofilm development period (P <0.05). For both bacteria, 0.5% CHX10, 2% CHX10,4% CHX10, and EFF15 showed a significant reduction in the number of CFU/mL when compared with their control groups, NES30, OPF30, and OPF6, regardless of the biofilm development period (P <0.05). Therefore, EFF15 and CHX (0.5%, 2% and 4%) were effective in reducing Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus on acrylic surfaces. NES30 and OPF (30 and 6) are not recommended.
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.