ArticleEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2023
Evaluation of the antibacterial activity of Enamelast® and Fluor defender® fluoride varnishes against Streptococcus mutans biofilm: an in vitro study in primary teeth.
Article in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative in vitro cytotoxicity of four commercially available 5% sodium fluoride varnishes in HGF-1 gingival fibroblasts.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of Three Different Topical Fluoride Varnishes onInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Combination of Cold Helium Plasma with Fluoride Varnish to Improve Enamel Surface Protection.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Ion release, cytocompatibility and microbial inhibition of a novel varnish containing fluoride-doped bioactive glass ceramics: an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the current work was to compare the antibacterial activity of Enamelast® and Fluor defender® fluoride varnish on biofilm generation by Streptococcus mutans on extracted primary teeth.
methodsThirty-six primary molars were collected and sliced into seventy-two test model disks. All specimens were examined, and the cracked or broken ones were discarded. A total number of specimens (n = 54) were divided into two experimental analyses viz; biofilm formation (n = 27) and microscopic examination (n = 27). Specimens of each analysis were tested under different experimental conditions: a negative control group (n = 9), Fluor defender group (n = 9), and Enamelast group (n = 9). Following treatment, biofilms were generated by adherent Streptococcus mutans on the test model disks on three time intervals: 24 h (n = 3), 48 h (n = 3), and 72 h (n = 3) for each analysis. Then, for biofilm formation analysis, the biofilm was detected spectrophotometrically at 620 nm after being stained by crystal violet. For microscopical analysis, the surfaces of the test model disks were visualized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and each image was processed and analyzed using ImageJ software.
resultsAt 48 and 72 h, Enamelast® and Fluor defender®-treated group showed significantly (p < 0.001) slight adhered bacterial cells when compared with the negative control group as revealed by the absorbance and SEM. Compared with the Fluor defender®-treated group, the absorbance of the Enamelast®-treated group showed a significant (p < 0.001) increase by approximately 7- and 16.5-fold at 48 and 72 h, respectively. Similarly, SEM showed that the number of bacterial cells adhered to enamel surfaces in the Fluor defender®-treated group was significantly (p < 0.001) fewer than the Enamelast®-treated group by approximately 36.55% and 20.62% at 48 and 72 h after exposure, respectively.
conclusionWe conclude that the anti-biofilm activity of Fluor defender® against Streptococcus mutans was significantly (p < 0.001) greater than Enamelast® fluoride varnish. The use of Fluor defender® is encouraged as a preventive measure in children with the high risk of developing dental caries.
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.