ArticlePolymers2022
Comparison of Various Antimicrobial Agents for Thermoplastic Polymeric Retainers.
Article in Polymers, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbial adherence on vacuum-formed retainers with different surface roughness as constructed from conventional stone models and 3D printed models: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Trial
- Effects of cleaning methods on the removal efficacy of Streptococcus mutans biofilm and material properties of thermoplastic aligner materials.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The thermoplastic retainers indicated a rising incidence of cariogenic bacteria such as Streptococcus mutans. A report suggested the case of a patient with severe gingival inflammation and dental caries as a result of inadequate appliance cleaning. This study aims to compare the various antimicrobial agents for thermoplastic polymeric retainers. A minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of acetic acid was determined. Streptococcus mutans biofilm was formed on punched 4-mm copolyester (Essix ACE®) and polyurethane (Vivera®) retainers after they were submerged in 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX group), acetic acid (AA group), Polident Denture Cleanser® (PD group), and Polident Pro Guard & Retainer® (PR group). A crystal violet (CV) test was performed. The biofilm imaging was assessed by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). The results showed that all chemical disinfectants exhibited statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) compared to the positive control. This novel finding elucidated that 0.625% acetic acid is effective for antimicrobial in both copolyester and polyurethane retainers. However, only the CHX, PD, and PR groups could reduce biofilm mass. In addition, the CV assay cannot provide information about the actual number of living and dead bacteria. Furthermore, the LIVE/DEAD BacLight assay was able to show the bacterial viability.
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.