ArticleBrazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]2023
Antibiofilm and antimicrobial activity of temporary filling materials on root canals: an in situ acid challenge.
Article in Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology], 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study evaluated the antibiofilm and antimicrobial effects of temporary restorative materials on root canals after an intra-oral challenge. Seventy roots were endodontically treated and divided into 5 groups: high-viscosity glass ionomer (HV-GIC), light-activated glass ionomer (RM-GIC), zinc-oxide cement without eugenol (ZO), zinc-oxide cement with eugenol (ZOE), and unsealed roots (negative control). For 28 days, 14 participants used intra-oral devices with five roots, and drops of sucrose were applied onto them. The amount of biofilm and the bacterial counts were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn, and by two-way ANOVA and Tukey (α = 0.05). HV-GIC and RM-GIC better inhibit biofilm, followed by ZO and ZOE. Unsealed roots had the largest biofilm accumulation (p = 0.002) and higher bacterial penetration than restored roots (p = 0.023). A low amount of Streptococcus was found in RM-GIC and ZOE-restored roots without difference from HV-GIC (p = 0.021). The low amount of Enterococcus (p = 0.003) was found in the ZOE-restored roots, without difference from GICs.
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.