Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37642488›Full record

ReviewMicrobiologyOpen2023

Evaluating models and assessment techniques for understanding oral biofilm complexity.

Srinivas Sulugodu Ramachandra, Patricia Wright, Pingping Han, Abdalla Abdal-Hay, Ryan S B Lee, Saso Ivanovski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in MicrobiologyOpen, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Elimination Effect of Medical-Grade Honey onJournal of clinical medicine research · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Rhamnolipid 89 Biosurfactant Is Effective againstInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
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.

Srinivas Sulugodu RamachandraCentre for Orofacial Regeneration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (COR3), School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9665-5092
Patricia WrightCentre for Orofacial Regeneration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (COR3), School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0672-5921
Pingping HanCentre for Orofacial Regeneration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (COR3), School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7546-1635
Abdalla Abdal-HayCentre for Orofacial Regeneration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (COR3), School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6307-6027
Ryan S B LeeCentre for Orofacial Regeneration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (COR3), School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6041-4799
Saso IvanovskiCentre for Orofacial Regeneration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (COR3), School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5339-0936

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oral biofilms are three-dimensional (3D) complex entities initiating dental diseases and have been evaluated extensively in the scientific literature using several biofilm models and assessment techniques. The list of biofilm models and assessment techniques may overwhelm a novice biofilm researcher. This narrative review aims to summarize the existing literature on biofilm models and assessment techniques, providing additional information on selecting an appropriate model and corresponding assessment techniques, which may be useful as a guide to the beginner biofilm investigator and as a refresher to experienced researchers. The review addresses previously established 2D models, outlining their advantages and limitations based on the growth environment, availability of nutrients, and the number of bacterial species, while also exploring novel 3D biofilm models. The growth of biofilms on clinically relevant 3D models, particularly melt electrowritten fibrous scaffolds, is discussed with a specific focus that has not been previously reported. Relevant studies on validated oral microcosm models that have recently gaining prominence are summarized. The review analyses the advantages and limitations of biofilm assessment methods, including colony forming unit culture, crystal violet, 2,3-bis-(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide inner salt assays, confocal microscopy, fluorescence in situ hybridization, scanning electron microscopy, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and next-generation sequencing. The use of more complex models with advanced assessment methodologies, subject to the availability of equipment/facilities, may help in developing clinically relevant biofilms and answering appropriate research questions.

Indexed as

BiofilmsGentian VioletHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMicroscopy, ConfocalGentian Violetassessmentbiofilmdynamicpolymicrobialthree-dimensional model

Identifiers

PMID37642488
PMCPMC10464519

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.