ArticleScientific reports2025
Resin composite aggregated S-PRG particles are not superior to non-S-PRG under microcosm biofilm.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioactive Fillers in Bulk-Fill Composite Resins: A Comprehensive Review of the Effects on Polymerization Shrinkage Behavior and Mechanical Performance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- TheBiomaterial investigations in dentistry · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed the effect of composite resins, aggregated or not with S-PRG particles, and the use of toothpaste in controlling demineralization and bacterial growth. Human molars were distributed into 3 groups: control (CT) - sound teeth, Beautifil Bulk Restorative System (aggregated with S-PRG) (BB), Filtek One Bulk Fill (without S-PRG) (FB). Teeth destined for groups BB and FB previously received Class I preparations (4 × 4 × 4 mm), followed by single-increment restorations. All teeth were sectioned mesiodistally, with all specimens subjected to cariogenic challenge for 5 days, including microcosm biofilm formation. Half of each tooth was exposed to toothpaste (CTF, BBF, FBF). The loss of microhardness was assessed considering the initial microhardness as 100% on enamel, dentin, and composite resin substrates. Colony Forming Units (CFU/mL) were counted in 3 media. Data analysis used one-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD test, and paired t-test (α = 0.05). Toothpaste significantly reduced CFU/mL for total bacteria and genus Streptococcus (p < 0.05), with no significant difference for Streptococcus mutans. Enamel microhardness was positively affected by toothpaste. Both restorative systems controlled enamel demineralization, with FB and FBF outperforming BB and BBF. There was minor degradation of both composite resins, between 10% and 22%. Toothpaste effectively reduced microorganisms, irrespective of the composite resin. Regarding demineralization control, both restorative systems, with and without S-PRG particles, were effective on enamel.
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.