ArticleBMC oral health2025
Technological dental sealants: in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potential.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the launch of new self-etching and self-adhesive sealing materials combined with the release of bioactive ions in the dental market, this in vitro study aimed to compare physical values of surface roughness (RS), vickers microhardness (VM), compositional energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), microbiological tests (inhibition halo-HI and surface microbial adhesion-MAS) and mechanical microshear bond strength (MBS).
methodsThe following groups were analyzed: Beautisealant® self-etching sealant (Shofu)(G1), FluroShield® conventional sealant (Dentsply)(G2- Control Group), Flow Constic® self-adhesive/self-etching resin (DMG)(G3) and Beautifil Flow Plus F03® conventional resin (Shofu)(G4). For the physical and compositional tests, specimens were molded and submitted to finishing/polishing in a metallographic polisher. RS and VM were measured through 5 readings. For the HI test, specimens were exposed to S. mutans for 24 h in brain-heart infusion (BHI) agar under microaerophilic conditions, with the diameter of the HI (mm) measured by digital caliper. For the MAS test, a bacterial biofilm of S. mutans was induced for five days in BHI broth + 5% sucrose and measurement of CFU/ml (log
resultsDifferent compositions proven in the EDS test were not determinants of the promotion of different RS: G1 = 0,19 (± 0,07), G2 = 0,15 (± 0,053), G3 = 0,13 (± 0,046), G4 = 0,14 (± 0,056); HI: G1 = 17,7 (± 1,36), G2 = 18,7 (± 3,47), G3 = 18,9 (± 4,87), G4 = 17,9 (± 3,61) and MAS: G1 = 5,22 (± 0,12), G2 = 5,15 (± 0,15), G3 = 5,12 (± 0,20), G4 = 5,06 (± 0,24). However, statistically influenced the values of VM: G1 = 16,71 (± 1,93), G2 = 16,28 (± 4,91), G3 = 26,11 (± 3,46), G4 = 37.9 (± 4.87), promoted lesser bacterial adhesion (G4 = 5.06 ± 0.24), and demonstrated fluoride ion only in the G4. Higher MBS was found in the conventional materials G5 = 8.38 (± 2.05) and G2 = 6.28 (± 1.35).
conclusionsBioactive materials and self-adhesive/self-etching for sealing pits and fissures did not demonstrate superior mechanical and antimicrobial properties performance compared to conventional techniques.
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.