Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39043806›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Cytotoxicity and antibacterial susceptibility assessment of a newly developed pectin-chitosan polyelectrolyte composite for dental implants.

Mohammed Hussein M Alsharbaty, Ghassan A Naji, Ban A Ghani, Michael Schagerl, Maha A Khalil, Sameh S Ali

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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. Review
  3. 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.

Mohammed Hussein M AlsharbatyBranch of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Al-Ameed, Karbala, Iraq. hussseinalsharbaty1986@gmail.com.
Ghassan A NajiCollege of Dentistry, AL-Iraqia University, Baghdad, Iraq.
Ban A GhaniDepartment of Oral Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq.
Michael SchagerlDepartment of Functional and Evolutionary Ecology, University of Vienna, Djerassiplatz 1, 1030, Vienna, Austria. michael.schagerl@univie.ac.at.
Maha A KhalilBiology Department, College of Science, Taif University, 21944, Taif, Saudi Arabia.
Sameh S AliBotany Department, Faculty of Science, Tanta University, Tanta, 31527, Egypt. samh_samir@science.tanta.edu.eg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biopolymers such as chitosan and pectin are currently attracting significant attention because of their unique properties, which are valuable in the food industry and pharmaceutical applications. These properties include non-toxicity, compatibility with biological systems, natural decomposition ability, and structural adaptability. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of two different ratios of pectin-chitosan polyelectrolyte composite (PCPC) after applying them as a coating to commercially pure titanium (CpTi) substrates using electrospraying. The PCPC was studied in ratios of 1:2 and 1:3, while the control group consisted of CpTi substrates without any coating. The pull-off adhesion strength, cytotoxicity, and antibacterial susceptibility tests were utilized to evaluate the PCPC coatings. In order to determine whether the composite coating was the result of physical blending or chemical bonding, the topographic surface parameters were studied using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). PCPC (1:3) had the highest average cell viability of 93.42, 89.88, and 86.85% after 24, 48, and 72 h, respectively, as determined by the cytotoxicity assay, when compared to the other groups. According to the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method for testing antibacterial susceptibility, PCPC (1:3) showed the highest average diameter of the zone of inhibition, measuring 14.88, 14.43, and 11.03 mm after 24, 48, and 72 h of incubation, respectively. This difference was highly significant compared to Group 3 at all three time periods. PCPC (1:3) exhibited a significantly higher mean pull-off adhesion strength (521.6 psi) compared to PCPC (1:2), which revealed 419.5 psi. PCPC (1:3) coated substrates exhibited better surface roughness parameters compared to other groups based on the findings of the AFM. The FTIR measurement indicated that both PCPC groups exhibited a purely physical blending in the composite coating. Based on the extent of these successful in vitro experiments, PCPC (1:3) demonstrates its potential as an effective coating layer. Therefore, the findings of this study pave the way for using newly developed PCPC after electrospraying coating on CpTi for dental implants.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsChitosanDental ImplantsPectinsPolyelectrolytesAnimalsCell SurvivalCoated Materials, BiocompatibleHumansMaterials TestingMiceMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMicroscopy, Atomic ForceSpectroscopy, Fourier Transform InfraredSurface PropertiesTitaniumAnti-Bacterial AgentsChitosanCoated Materials, BiocompatibleDental ImplantsPectinsPolyelectrolytesTitaniumAntibacterial susceptibilityChitosanCytotoxicityDental implantsPectinTitanium

Identifiers

PMID39043806
PMCPMC11266696

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.