ArticleCaspian journal of internal medicine2021
Oral mucosa and Streptococcus mutans count in the saliva. Does graphene oxide nanoparticle mouthwash have a good effect?
Article in Caspian journal of internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Antimicrobial Efficacy of Graphene Oxide: Key Mechanisms and Future Directions.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Physical-mechanical, chemical and biological properties of graphene-reinforced glass ionomer cements.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the effect of graphene oxide (GO) nanoparticles mouthwash on oral mucosa, Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) count in the saliva of rats, and human enamel surface microhardness, in comparison with fluoride mouthwash.
methodsThis study was conducted in two phases namely an animal study, and an in vitro experimental study. GO mouthwash (0.005%), sodium fluoride (NaF) mouthwash (0.05%), and a combination of both (0.05% NaF-0.005% GO) were prepared. The oral cavity of 36 rats was inoculated with S. mutans, and they were randomly divided into 4 groups according to the type of mouthwash. The control group received saline mouthwash. Fourteen days after using the mouthwashes, all rats were sacrificed, and the salivary S. mutans count was measured. The buccal and tongue mucosa were also histologically examined for the type and severity of inflammation, number of blood vessels, epithelial thickness, and epithelial keratinization. For microhardness testing, 40 sound extracted human premolars were randomly assigned to four groups (n=10) of culture medium with S. mutans and different mouthwashes. The enamel microhardness was measured at 7 and 14 days, and compared with the baseline value.
resultsThe mean S. mutans count in the saliva of rats in GO and NaF-GO groups was significantly lower than that in other groups (p<0.001). Enamel microhardness in NaF and NaF-GO groups significantly increased at 7 and 14 days, compared with baseline.
conclusionAddition of GO nanoparticles improved the antibacterial properties without causing adverse mucosal effects such as ulceration, acute inflammation or atrophy of the epithelium of the oral mucosa, but had no effect on surface hardness of the enamel.
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.