ArticleJournal of endodontics2024
Antimicrobial Silk Fibroin Methacrylated Scaffolds for Regenerative Endodontics.
Article in Journal of endodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engineered biomaterial-based scaffolds for dentin-pulp complex regeneration: applications and biological performance-a scoping review.Odontology · 2026Review
- Optimizing methods for regenerative endodontics.Regenerative medicine · 2025Review
- Regenerative Endodontic Therapies: Harnessing Stem Cells, Scaffolds, and Growth Factors.Polymers · 2025Review
- Electrospun SilkMA/silicate-chlorinated cobalt-doped bioactive glass composite for bone regeneration.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRecognizing the necessity of novel disinfection strategies for improved bacterial control to ultimately favor tissue regeneration, this study developed and characterized antibiotics-laden silk fibroin methacrylated (SilkMA) scaffolds for regenerative endodontics.
methodsSilkMA-based solutions (10% w/v) containing Clindamycin (CLI) or Tinidazole (TIN) (0 - control; 5, 10, or 15% w/w) or the combination of both drugs (BiMix CLI/TIN 10%) were electrospun and photocrosslinked. Morphology and composition were assessed using scanning electron microscopy and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. Additionally, swelling and degradation profiles were also determined. Cytotoxicity was evaluated in stem cells from apical papilla. Antibacterial efficacy was tested using direct and indirect contact assays against Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans/Aa, Actinomyces naeslundii/An, Enterococcus faecalis/Ef, and Fusobacterium nucleatum/Fn. E. faecalis biofilm inhibition on dentin discs was specifically evaluated for BiMix-laden scaffolds. Data were statistically analyzed with a significance level of 5%.
resultsScanning electron microscopy revealed that all scaffolds had similar characteristics, including fiber morphology and bead absence. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy showed the incorporation of CLI and TIN into the fibers and in BiMix scaffolds. Antibiotic-laden scaffolds exhibited lower swelling capacity than the control and were degraded entirely after 45 days. Scaffolds laden with CLI, TIN, or BiMix throughout all time points did not reduce stem cells from apical papilla's viability. CLI-laden scaffolds inhibited the growth of Aa, An, and Ef, while TIN-laden scaffolds inhibited Fn growth. BiMix-laden scaffolds significantly inhibited Aa, An, Ef, and Fn in direct contact, and their aliquots inhibited An and Fn through indirect contact, with additional biofilm inhibition against Ef.
conclusionsBiMix-laden SilkMA scaffolds are cytocompatible and exhibit antimicrobial effects against endodontic pathogens, indicating their therapeutic potential as a drug delivery system for regenerative endodontics.
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.