Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40511215›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025

Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Mouthwash and Denture Cleanser in the Removal of Candida Albicans from Two Flexible Denture Base Materials - An

B V H Ravi Teja, Jayakrishna Babu, Lokesh Sunkala, V Bhanu Chander, K V Gurucharan Karthik, Jisa A Alex

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

B V H Ravi TejaDepartment of Prosthodontics, Army College of Dental Sciences (ACDS), Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Jayakrishna BabuPrivate Practitioner, Department of Prosthodontics, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Lokesh SunkalaDepartment of Prosthodontics, Army College of Dental Sciences (ACDS), Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
V Bhanu ChanderDepartment of Prosthodontics, Malla Reddy Dental College for Women, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
K V Gurucharan KarthikDepartment of Prosthodontics, Army College of Dental Sciences (ACDS), Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Jisa A AlexDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, Malla Reddy Dental College for Women, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Poly-methyl methacrylate is the most common denture base material but has limitations. Flexible denture base materials, such as Lucitone FRS and Valplast, were introduced to address these issues. Denture success depends on preventing microbial attachment and easy cleaning. This study evaluates the efficacy of Clinsodent denture cleanser and 0.2% Chlorhexidine (Rexidine) mouthwash in removing Candida albicans from these materials. Methodology: Forty-eight specimens were subdivided into three groups, with eight in each. After inoculation with Candida albicans, samples were treated with distilled water (control), 0.2% Rexidine mouthwash, or Clinsodent cleanser. Colony counts were analyzed. Results: Rexidine mouthwash was more effective than Clinsodent. Valplast showed higher initial Candida growth, indicating Lucitone FRS is more resistant. Conclusion: 0.2% Rexidine mouthwash was superior in Candida removal, and Lucitone FRS exhibited greater resistance than Valplast.

Indexed as

Candida albicansChlorhexidineClinsodentFlexible denture base resin 0.2%Rexidine mouthwash

Identifiers

PMID40511215
PMCPMC12156631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.