ArticleBMC oral health2022
Evaluation of the antibacterial activity of Lactobacilli probiotics supernatants against Enterococcus faecalis (in-vitro study).
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A preliminary antimicrobial investigation of lactobacillus bulgaricus probiotic supernatants as an intracanal medication against mature E. faecalis biofilm in an ex-vivo dentin blocks model.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Anti-Cariogenic Potential of Lyophilized Cell-Free Supernatant of ProbioticJournal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial efficacy ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Lactiplantibacillus Plantarum Postbiotics Suppress Salmonella Typhimurium Invasion and Modulate Innate Responses in Human Intestinal Epithelial Cells.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Article
- The combination of dietary active dry yeast andAnimal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2025Article
- Reconstructing the Antibiotic Pipeline: Natural Alternatives to Antibacterial Agents.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Antibacterial efficacy of ultrasonically activated probiotic endodontic irrigant against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Promiscuous, persistent and problematic: insights into current enterococcal genomics to guide therapeutic strategy.BMC microbiology · 2024Review
- Article
- Antibacterial effectiveness of multi-strain probiotics supernatants intracanal medication on Enterococcus faecalis biofilm in a tooth model.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Dietary Supplementation with ProbioticBiology · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing demand to find a potent antibacterial agent against endodontic pathogens with the least toxic effect. The study aimed to evaluate the antibacterial activity of Lactobacilli probiotics on Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) in comparison to calcium hydroxide paste.
methodsThe study involved two stages; (stage one): determination of the antibacterial properties of three strains of Lactobacilli probiotics supernatants (PS); Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and a cocktail mix of the three supernatants against E. faecalis using agar well diffusion method in both solution and gel phase. The formed zones of inhibition (ZOI) were measured in millimeters (mm) and compared to each other. PS solution and gel of the largest ZOI were further compared with calcium hydroxide paste (35% Ultra Cal XS Ca(OH)
resultsAll supernatants showed growth inhibition against E. faecalis, and the cocktail mix showed the largest ZOI. However, no significant difference was found between the supernatants in both the solution and gel phases (p > 0.05). Ca(OH)
conclusionPS has an antibacterial effect on E. faecalis and was more effective than Ca(OH)
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.