Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37466526›Full record

ArticleBrazilian dental journal

In vitro evaluation of membranes for regenerative procedures against oral bacteria.

Ana Clara Kuerten Gil, Maick Meneguzzo Prado, Laura Rhoden da Rocha, César Benfatti, Guenther Schuldt Filho, Josiane de Almeida

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brazilian dental journal. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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.

Ana Clara Kuerten GilDepartment of Implant Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5544-8310
Maick Meneguzzo PradoDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7539-8717
Laura Rhoden da RochaDepartment of Endodontics, University of Southern Santa Catarina (UNISUL), Palhoça, Santa Catarina, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0523-0406
César BenfattiDepartment of Implant Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4209-0054
Guenther Schuldt FilhoDepartment of Implant Dentistry, University of Southern Santa Catarina (UNISUL), Palhoça, Santa Catarina, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4462-358X
Josiane de AlmeidaDepartment of Endodontics, University of Southern Santa Catarina (UNISUL), Palhoça, Santa Catarina, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6120-5996

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current literature on guided bone regeneration (GBR) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) membrane contamination reports that the physicochemical characteristics of these biomaterials might influence affinity to bacteria, which appears to be a major drawback for the clinical outcome of the regenerative procedures. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate, in vitro, a multispecies biofilm adherence and passage of bacteria through different types of commercially available membranes for GTR/GBR. Four types of membranes were tested (n=12): LC) Lumina Coat®; JS) Jason®; BG) Biogide®; and LP) Lumina PTFE®. Aluminum foil (AL) simulated an impermeable barrier and was used as the control. The membranes were adapted to specific apparatus and challenged with a mixed bacterial culture composed of A. actinomycetemcomitans b, S. mutans, S. mitis, and A. israelii. After 2 h or 7 days, bacterial adhesion and passage of bacteria were evaluated through CFU counting, which was analyzed by two-way ANOVA e post hoc Tukey, at a 5% significance level. Representative areas of two membranes of each group were analyzed through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to assess the morphology and organization of the biofilm over the membrane fibers. LC and LP presented similar values of adhered bacterial cells (p > 0.05), significantly inferior when compared to the other groups, in both time points (p < 0.05). All the tested groups were permeable to bacterial cells, with no significant difference between the trial period of 2 h and 7 days (p > 0.05). SEM analyses demonstrated that adhered bacteria number increased throughout the time points (2 h < 7 days). Commercially available biological membranes demonstrated intense bacterial adherence and passage of bacteria, which increased throughout the trial period.

Indexed as

Guided Tissue RegenerationBacteriaBacterial AdhesionBiocompatible MaterialsBiofilmsGuided Tissue Regeneration, PeriodontalMembranes, ArtificialBiocompatible MaterialsMembranes, Artificial

Identifiers

PMID37466526
PMCPMC10355258

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.