ArticleBMC oral health2024
Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on two bioactive cements: an in-vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Antimicrobial potential of bioactive resin composites in caries management: a systematic review ofFrontiers in oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Multidimensional Characterization of Surface Properties and Microbial Biofilm Formation in Commercial Flowable Resin-Based Dental Composites.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Mechanical performance and color stability of 3D-printed ceramic-filled resin following various bleaching regimens: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effects of Ultrasonic Scaling and Teeth Brushing on Surface Properties of PEEK Prosthetic Restorations.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Bioactive restorative materials in dentistry: a comprehensive review of mechanisms, clinical applications, and future directions.Odontology · 2026Review
- Antimicrobial Sol-Gel Glassy Surfaces for Modification of Dental Implant Abutments to Reduce Microbial Adhesion.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effect of Bleaching on the Surface Roughness of Resin Composites Evaluated by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM).Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Surface roughness and biofilm formation on tooth-colored restorative materials immersed in food-simulating liquids.BMC oral health · 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
backgroundDental restorative materials are recognized as artificial niches that facilitate the adherence and accumulation of oral microorganisms. To mitigate oral diseases and extend the lifespan of restorations, it is advantageous to use dental materials that exhibit low susceptibility to bacterial adhesion.
objectiveTo evaluate and compare bacterial adhesion on two bioactive restorative materials, a glass hybrid restorative, and an alkasite with a nanohybrid resin composite as a positive control. The secondary objectives were to compare the surface roughness (SR) of the materials and determine the correlation between the bacterial adhesion and the SR. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe samples consisted of 33 polished discs of each material: Group A: Tetric
resultsAlkasite had significantly lower OD and CFUs (p < 0.001 and p = 0.015 respectively). According to the SEM analysis, the glass hybrid restorative had lower mean bacterial cell count with no significant difference between the groups. The nanohybrid composite had the smoothest surface that was significantly lower than the alkasite and glass hybrid restorative (p = 0.002). None of the groups demonstrated a correlation between bacterial adhesion and SR.
conclusionAlkasite impedes bacterial adhesion better than the glass hybrid restorative and nanohybrid composite, while smoother surfaces are achieved with the nanohybrid composite.
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.