ReviewCureus2024
Antibacterial Agents for Composite Resin Restorative Materials: Current Knowledge and Future Prospects.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Oral Environment Alterations on Salivary Candida Load: An Exploratory Clinical Study.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial activity and material compatibility of Anatolian essential oil-based oral care formulations.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
- Multifaceted characterization of antibacterial resin composites: A scoping review on efficacy, properties, and in vivo performance.The Japanese dental science review · 2025Review
- Leveraging Dental Biotechnology for Population Oral Health: Innovations in Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Antibacterial effects of bioactive restorative dental materials on Streptococcus mutans: An in vitro study using the direct contact test.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Article
- Eugenol Nanoparticles in Dental Composites: Literature Review of Antimicrobial, Anti-Inflammatory, and Clinical Applications.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- SEM evaluation of dental cement surface morphology and microbial adhesion - a comparative study.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Resin composites became the material of choice for direct restorations in anterior and posterior teeth. Despite the revolutionary improvement in the material, restoration failure is still a major drawback due to the material's inherent negative properties, including a lack of antibacterial effects. Therefore, many attempts have been made to incorporate antibacterial agents into resin composite materials to improve their antimicrobial properties and prevent secondary caries formation. Multiple laboratory studies have been conducted using different antibacterial agents, such as quaternary ammonium compounds, methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide, magnesium oxide nanoparticles, chlorhexidine, and chitosan. This review provides a glance at the current status of these materials and the research directions needed in the future.
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.