ArticleBrazilian dental journal
In vitro evaluation of membranes for regenerative procedures against oral bacteria.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical stem cell therapy in oral and craniofacial bone regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- In Vitro Microbial Adhesion on the Surfaces of Various Polytetrafluoroethylene Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- A Novel Device for the Evaluation of In Vitro Bacterial Colonization in Membranes for Guided Tissue and Bone Regeneration.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Assessment of multispecies biofilm growth on root canal dentin under different radiation therapy regimens.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.