ArticleOdontology2025
Evaluation of early bacterial adhesion on CAD/CAM dental materials: an in situ study.
Article in Odontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of the Effects of Acidic and Alkaline Beverages on the Optical Properties, Surface Topography, and Bacterial Activity of Zirconia Materials.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Influence of Polishing and Glazing on Surface Characteristics and Biofilm Formation on Zirconia: An In Vitro Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Fracture load analysis of telescopic overdentures fabricated from PEEK and zirconia.Bioinformation · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this research was to determine if there are differences in early bacterial adhesion among CAD/CAM dental materials after 24 h exposure in the oral environment. One hundred twenty specimens were prepared according to the manufacturer's recommendations and divided into six groups: RBC (resin-based composite), PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate), PEEK (polyether ether ketone), ZP (zirconia polished), ZG (zirconia glazed), and cobalt-chromium alloy (CoCr alloy). Twenty healthy participants were instructed to carry an intraoral device with six specimens, one per group, for 24 h. Thereafter, real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analyses enabled quantification and 2D view of biofilm formed on the specimens' surfaces. Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's post hoc analysis were used for inter-group comparison and data were presented as median (minimum-maximum). RBC specimens accumulated less bacteria, in comparison with ZG (p = 0.017) and PEEK specimens (p = 0.030), that dominated with the highest amount of adhered bacterial biofilm. PMMA, CoCr, and ZP specimens adhered more bacteria than RBC (p > 0.05), and less than ZG (p > 0.05) and PEEK (p > 0.05). The bacterial number varied considerably among participants. The obtained results enable a closer view into the susceptibility of CAD/CAM materials to microorganisms during the presence in the oral environment, which can be beneficial for a proper selection of these materials for a variety of dental restorations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38705962What 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.