Trial reportClinical oral investigations2022
Oral bacterial decontamination using an innovative prototype for photocatalytic disinfection.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevention of pain and oral mucositis in patients undergoing chemotherapy through the use of a high-energy light source: A randomized clinical study.Lasers in medical science · 2025Trial
- Zinc Phosphate Microparticles against Nosocomial and Oral Bacteria: Synthesis, Analytical Characterization, and Biocompatibility.ACS omega · 2025Article
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a prototype photocatalytic device for bacterial decontaminations of the oral cavity.
methodsSixty-four subjects (18-65) were selected and randomly assigned to eight groups (n = 8), according to oral disinfection protocol: (G1): distilled water (control); (G2): 1.5% hydrogen peroxide (HP); (G3): 3.0% HP; (G4): 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX); (G5): Germinator; (G6): 1.5% HP + Germinator; (G7): 3.0%HP + Germinator; (G8): 0.12% CHX + Germinator. Stimulated saliva was collected before and after a 3-min mouthwash and/or Germinator application. The patients were kept relaxed and retained saliva 5-10 min, spitting out into the tube for 3 min. The percentage bacterial reduction was checked by counting the colony-forming units (CFUs) after culturing on blood agar plates. Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test (α = 5%) for statistical significance.
resultsThe highest bacterial reduction was observed in groups 3 (3.0% HP), 6 (1.5% HP + Germinator), and 7 (3.0% + Germinator), with no statistically significant difference between them (p > 0.05). Groups 6 (1.5% HP + Germinator) and 8 (0.12% CHX + Germinator) showed higher bacterial reduction than groups 2 (1.5% HP) and 4 (0.12% CHX) (p < 0.05). Finally, group 5 (Germinator) showed higher bacterial reduction than control group (DW) and group 4 (0.12% CHX) (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe photocatalytic disinfection was effective against oral bacteria and improved the antimicrobial action of 1.5% HP and 0.12%. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The photocatalytic disinfection can be an alternative protocol to provide the oral decontamination.
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.