ArticlePeerJ2020
Anti-
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stimuli-responsive, antimicrobial-loaded nanocarriers for oral biofilm control and microbiome restoration.International journal of oral science · 2026Review
- Dextranase enhances nanoparticle penetration ofJournal of oral microbiology · 2025Article
- Effect of mutanase and dextranase on biofilms of cariogenic bacteria: A systematic review ofBiofilm · 2024Review
- Anti-Infection of Oral Microorganisms from Herbal Medicine ofDrug design, development and therapy · 2024Review
- Potential Activities ofAdvances in pharmacological and pharmaceutical sciences · 2024Article
- Improving the thermostability of GH49 dextranase AoDex by site-directed mutagenesis.AMB Express · 2023Article
- Immobilized enzymes as potent antibiofilm agent.Biotechnology progress · 2022Review
- Phytochemical Profile of Antibacterial Agents from Red Betel Leaf (Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Purification and characterization of cold-adapted and salt-tolerant dextranase fromFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Amylases: Biofilm Inducer or Biofilm Inhibitor?Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe accumulation of plaque causes oral diseases. Dental plaque is formed on teeth surfaces by oral bacterial pathogens, particularly
methodsThe activity of food-grade fungal dextranase was measured on the basis of increasing ratio of reducing sugar concentration, determined by the reaction with 3, 5-dinitrosalicylic acid reagent. The efficiency of the dextranase enzyme was investigated based on its minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) against biofilm formation by
resultsThe highest activity of the dextranase enzyme was 4401.71 unit/g at a pH of 6 and 37 °C. The dextranase at its MIC (4.5 unit/g) showed strong inhibition against the growth of
conclusionThis research achieved an alternative health product for oral care by formulating toothpaste with dextranase encapsulated in effective alginate beads to act against cariogenic bacteria, like
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.