Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38375385›Full record

ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2024

Testing mechanical properties and degree of conversion of resin-based composite material containing contact killing antibacterial agent in comparison with fluoride composite resin.

Heba A Mitwalli, Bashayer H Baras, Sara S Saeed, Hockin H K Xu, Michael D Weir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Heba A MitwalliDepartment of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.
Bashayer H BarasDepartment of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.
Sara S SaeedCollege of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.
Hockin H K XuDepartment of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21201, United States.
Michael D WeirDepartment of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21201, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A major drawback of resin composites is their tendency to accumulate microbial biofilms that can lead to secondary caries. The objective of this study was to compare the mechanical properties and the degree of conversion of commercial resin-based composite materials containing a contact-killing antibacterial agent, dimethylaminohexadecyl methacrylate (DMAHDM), at different concentrations, with a fluoride-releasing composite material. Materials and methods: Four groups were tested: Tetric N Ceram composite material (G1), Tetric Evo Ceram (G2), and Tetric N Ceram with the addition of contact-killing antibacterial agent DMAHDM at concentrations of 3% (G3) and 5% (G4). The mechanical properties, including flexural strength, elastic modulus, and Vickers microhardness and the degree of conversion were investigated. Results: Adding 3 % and 5 % DMAHDM resulted in flexural strength values that were comparable to Tetric Evo Ceram. Tetric N Ceram was comparable to the group containing 3 % DMAHDM (p > 0.05). However, it was significantly greater when compared to Tetric Evo Ceram (93.3 ± 9.4) and 5 % DMAHDM (p < 0.05). Both the elastic modulus and Vickers microhardness values of Tetric N Ceram were significantly higher than those of the other groups (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the elastic modulus of Tetric Evo Ceram showed similar results to groups with 3 % and 5 % DMAHDM. Nevertheless, the Vickers microhardness value is significantly higher when compared to 5 % DMAHDM (0.394 ± 0.021) (p < 0.05) while it was comparable to that of 3 % DMAHDM (0.484 ± 0.016) (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the degree of conversion between the groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Adding 3% DMAHDM to Tetric N Ceram resulted in flexural strength values that were similar to those of Tetric N Ceram and Tetric Evo Ceram. DMAHDM did not affect the degree of conversion of Tetric N Ceram composite.

Indexed as

AntibacterialContact-killingDegree of conversionDimethylaminohexadecyl methacrylateMechanical propertiesResin-based composite

Identifiers

PMID38375385
PMCPMC10874990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.