ArticleOdontology2025
Bacterial adhesion and surface roughness of particulate-filled and short fiber-reinforced composites.
Article in Odontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surface Physical and Mechanical Properties of Short Fibre Reinforced Composite Resins in Direct Restorative Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Australian dental journal · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of the bond strength of composite resins with distinct properties to short fiber-reinforced composite resins of different viscosities.Odontology · 2026Article
- Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with different bi-layered core and occlusal overlay materials: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Multidimensional Characterization of Surface Properties and Microbial Biofilm Formation in Commercial Flowable Resin-Based Dental Composites.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Effects of different polishing systems on gloss and roughness of CAD/CAM reinforced resin composites: an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of the study was to assess the initial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and surface roughness of different particulate-filled (PFC) and short fiber-reinforced (SFRC) composites. Five PFC composites (CeramX Universal, Filtek Universal, Omnichroma, Tetric Prime and Venus Diamond) and four SFRC composites (everX Posterior, everX Flow Bulk, everX Flow Dentin and experimental packable SFRC) were tested in this study. A non-contact 3D profilometer was employed to assess the surface roughness (Ra) of the polished specimens (using 4000-grit abrasive paper). For the bacterial adhesion test, the specimens (n = 5/group) were immersed in a solution of S. mutans to facilitate initial adhesion. To determine the number of cells on the surfaces of the discs as colony-forming units (CFU), the vials holding the microbial samples were highly agitated using a vortex machine. Subsequently, the samples were diluted multiple times and anaerobically incubated for 48 h at 37 °C on Mitis Salivarius Agar plates (Difco) supplemented with bacitracin. Bacterial adherence assessment was performed using SEM. The data were analyzed using ANOVA. All tested PFC and SFRC composites showed similar adhesion of S. mutan. The lowest Ra values (0.26 µm) (p < 0.05) were found in the flowable SFRCs (everX Flow Bulk & Dentin), while the highest values (p < 0.05) were observed in CeramX and everX Posterior (0.42 µm). Experimental SFRC had comparable Ra value (0.38 µm) than other commercial composites. The presence of short microfibers in the composite appeared to have no adverse effects on the initial adhesion of bacteria or the surface roughness.
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.