ArticleMedical science monitor basic research2022
Evaluation of Antimicrobial Effectiveness of Dental Cement Materials on Growth of Different Bacterial Strains.
Article in Medical science monitor basic research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibacterial effects of bioactive restorative dental materials on Streptococcus mutans: An in vitro study using the direct contact test.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Article
- In Vitro and In Vivo Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Activity of Zinc Sulfate (ZnSOAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity of a Bioactive Restorative Material Versus a Glass-Ionomer Cement on Streptococcus Mutans: In-Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2023Article
- SEM evaluation of dental cement surface morphology and microbial adhesion - a comparative study.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial effectiveness of dental cement materials for the prevention of bacterial growth, which can cause failure of fixed cementation. MATERIAL AND METHODS We developed an agar diffusion disk test in-house to evaluate the antibacterial properties of 3 commercially available dental cement materials (Ketac, Harvard FLB, and Panavia SA Universal Dual Resin cements) compared with a negative control. The materials were tested for the inhibition against Streptococcus mutans (ATCC 10449), Streptoccocus salivarius (ATCC 25975), Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 29212), and Lactobacilus acidophilus (ATCC 4356). The antimicrobial effectiveness of materials was expressed as the diameters of the inhibition zones around the disk. RESULTS Overall, 240 specimens were tested. All cement materials showed antimicrobial effectiveness. Different microbial strains reacted differently to the different dental cements (all P.
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.