ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Comparison of Antibacterial Activity of Various Additives to Glass Ionomer Restoration: An
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. 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, 0 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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Glass-ionomer (GIC) cement was introduced in 1972 as a "new filling material of dentistry". It is bioactive and plays an important role in caries prevention due to its ability to release fluoride into the oral environment and remineralization of dental hard tissues. However, its properties such as moisture sensitivity, wear resistance, and bond strength are not sufficient to inflict the antimicrobial environment. This Methodology: This study was conducted on 120 disk-shaped samples (30 for antibacterial activity), which were placed in Petri dishes holding Müeller Hinton agar. Bacterial strains were overhauled in the brain heart infusion culture medium, and by utilizing disposable straps on blood agar medium, 100 ml of the strain inoculum was plated out. Through the diffusion method on the solid medium, the antibacterial activity of GIC was determined. Results: The antibacterial activity was the highest for Riva silver and chemifill rock for 24 and 72 hours, respectively. For 48 hours, Equia forte and chemifill rock had the highest antibacterial activity, and there was a significant difference between the groups. Conclusion: Ketac™ molar easymix inhibited the growth of S. mutans and L. acidophilus but had the lowest antibacterial effect compared to other 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.