Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35931891›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2022

Surface characteristics and bacterial adhesion of endodontic cements.

Andreas Koutroulis, Håkon Valen, Dag Ørstavik, Vasileios Kapralos, Josette Camilleri, Pia Titterud Sunde

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Antibacterial activity of biodentine againstFrontiers in dental medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Andreas KoutroulisSection of Endodontics, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Blindern, P.O. Box 1109, 0317, Oslo, Norway. andreas.koutroulis@odont.uio.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7427-9978
Håkon ValenNordic Institute of Dental Materials (NIOM), Oslo, Norway.
Dag ØrstavikSection of Endodontics, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Blindern, P.O. Box 1109, 0317, Oslo, Norway.
Vasileios KapralosSection of Endodontics, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Blindern, P.O. Box 1109, 0317, Oslo, Norway.
Josette CamilleriSchool of Dentistry, Institute of Clinical Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Pia Titterud SundeSection of Endodontics, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Blindern, P.O. Box 1109, 0317, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NONordic Institute of Dental Materials · NOUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the effect of inclusion of silver nano-particles (SNP) or bioactive glass (BG) on the surface characteristics and bacterial adhesion of prototype tricalcium silicate (TCS)-based cements alongside two commercial cements, under different aging periods and exposure conditions. MATERIALS AND

methodsA basic formulation of radio-opacified TCS without (TZ-base) and with additions of SNP (0.5, 1, or 2 mg/ml) or BG (10 or 20%) was used. Biodentine and intermediate restorative material (IRM) served as reference materials. Material disks were immersed in ultrapure water or fetal bovine serum (FBS) for 1, 7, or 28 days. Surface roughness (n = 3), microhardness (n = 9), and wettability (n = 6) were analyzed by standard procedures. Adhesion of Enterococcus faecalis was assessed by fluorescence microscopy (n = 5). Data from these assays were evaluated for normality and comparisons among groups were conducted with statistical procedures (p < 0.05 for significance).

resultsThe surface morphology of SNP- and BG-containing cements had higher roughness values than TZ-base after 28 days (p < 0.05). No differences in microhardness were observed among prototype cements (p > 0.05). Biodentine presented smooth surface characteristics and the highest hardness values (p < 0.05). The FBS-immersion resulted in surface reactions in prototype materials and Biodentine, depicted with scanning electron microscopy. All 1- and 7-day prototype cements showed negligible bacterial adhesion, while in Biodentine and IRM, noticeable E. faecalis adherence was observed from day 1 (p < 0.05).

conclusionsIncorporation of SNP or BG did not improve the antibacterial effect of the experimental cement; all 28-day aged materials failed to inhibit bacterial adherence. The measured physical parameters did not appear to be related to the degree of bacterial adhesion. Exposure of TCS-based cements in FBS resulted in surface reactions, which did not affect bacterial adhesion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Changes in the surface characteristics of prototype TCS-based cements by inclusion of SNP and BG or exposure to different environments did not affect bacterial adhesion. All experimental materials showed inferior physical properties and higher antibacterial effect than Biodentine.

Indexed as

Bacterial AdhesionCalcium CompoundsAluminum CompoundsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug CombinationsMaterials TestingOxidesSilicatesSurface PropertiesAluminum CompoundsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCalcium CompoundsDrug CombinationsOxidesSilicatestricalcium silicateAntibacterial compoundsCalcium silicateCharacterizationRoot-end fillingRoot repair

Identifiers

PMID35931891
PMCPMC9708781
OpenAlexW4289920283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.