ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry
Comparative Evaluation of Antibacterial Effect of GIC Containing Chlorhexidine and Miswak on
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Effect of Thioglycosides Extracted from White Mustard on Dental Plaque and Gingivitis: Randomized, Single-Blinded Clinical Trial.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Trial
- In Vitro Antibacterial Effects ofInternational journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Antibacterial efficacy of nano-silver, nano-chitosan and silver diamine fluoride againstBioinformation · 2026Article
- Organic antibacterial modifications of high-viscosity glass ionomer cement for atraumatic restorative treatment: A review.The Japanese dental science review · 2024Review
- Plant-Derived Compounds: A Promising Tool for Dental Caries Prevention.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Review
- Article
- Comparison of the Anti-bacterial Efficacy ofFrontiers in oral health · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe therapeutic procedures used in the treatment of caries do not always eliminate all the microorganisms. Persisting cariogenic bacteria can cause recurrent caries and failure of restoration. Incorporation of an antimicrobial agent in the restorative material may be of paramount significance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the antibacterial effect of glass ionomer cement (GIC) containing CHX and miswak extract on MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-five children with ECC in the age-group 3-6 years were selected. The children were randomly allocated into three groups. Supragingival plaque samples (S1) were collected from sound buccal or labial surfaces of primary teeth. Cavity preparation was done and the teeth were restored according to the group to which the child had been allotted. The second plaque sample (S2) was collected 1 month and the final sample after 3 months of restoring all the decayed teeth. All the samples were sent for PCR analysis.
resultsIntergroup analysis was done using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Mann-Whitney
conclusion1% chlorhexidine digluconate and aqueous extract of miswak are equally effective against HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Kalpavriksha AJ, Siddaiah SB, Bilichodmath S,
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.