ArticleCureus2024
A Comparative Evaluation of Antifungal and Physical Properties When Nanoparticles Are Incorporated Into the Tissue Conditioner: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective The objective of this in vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the antifungal and physical properties of tissue conditioner incorporated with nanoparticles (NPs) of different types and concentrations. Materials and methods A total of 198 tissue conditioner samples were used in this study. The samples were categorized into a control group, namely, tissue conditioner without NPs (Group 1), and test groups, namely, tissue conditioner incorporated with zinc oxide (ZnO) NPs (Group 2) and magnesium oxide (MgO) NPs (Group 3). The antifungal properties and surface roughness of the samples were evaluated. The groups were further subdivided into seven subgroups: control (without NPs), 5% ZnO NPs, 10% ZnO NPs, 15% ZnO NPs, 3% MgO NPs, 5% MgO NPs, and 7% MgO NPs by weight. Surface roughness was measured using an optical profilometer, and antifungal activity was measured in terms of the diameter of the inhibition zone (DIZ) using the well diffusion method over seven days. Results The result showed that the 5% ZnO NPs subgroup had the lowest mean surface roughness, whereas the 15% ZnO NPs subgroup had the highest antifungal activity. Increasing the concentration of NPs increased the antifungal property, and there was a steady decrease in DIZ from day one to day seven in all test groups. Conclusion Our results showed that the incorporation of various concentrations of ZnO and MgO NPs into tissue conditioner samples positively affected their physical and antifungal properties. The highest antifungal activity was found in the 15% ZnO NPs subgroup, and the lowest surface roughness was found in the 5% ZnO NPs subgroup.
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.