ArticleBMC oral health2025
Surface roughness and biofilm formation on tooth-colored restorative materials immersed in food-simulating liquids.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optical stability of restorative materials following exposure to food-simulating liquids: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticle Modification of 3D-Printed Crown Resin: Effects of Concentration on Surface Roughness and Vickers Hardness After Thermocycling.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Article
- Next-Gen Restorative Materials to Revolutionise Smiles.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comprehensive evaluation of antibacterial activity, pH stability, and surface characterization of a mussel-inspired polymer for root perforation repair.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Surface roughness of enamel and cention N after toothpaste brushing: AnBioinformation · 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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the surface roughness and biofilm formation of different restorative materials immersed in food-simulating liquids (FSLs), and to investigate the relationship between these parameters.
methodsA total of 220 disc-shaped specimens (8 mm diameter × 2 mm depth) were prepared using five restorative materials: alkasite [Cention N], giomer [Beautifil II], ormocer [Admira Fusion], direct composite [G-ænial A'Chord], and indirect composite [Gradia Plus] (n = 44 per material). Each material group was divided into four subgroups (n = 11), immersed in one of four solutions-heptane, ethanol, citric acid, or artificial saliva (control)-for 7 days, resulting in a total of 20 experimental subgroups. In each subgroup of 11 specimens, 10 were used for both surface roughness measurements (before and after immersion) and bacterial adhesion assessment using the colony-forming unit (CFU) method, while one was reserved for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis. Additionally, data were tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and statistical analyses were performed using robust ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests (p < 0.05).
resultsAlkasite and giomer exhibited significantly higher surface roughness values, whereas indirect composite presented the lowest (p < 0.001). Regarding the immersion solutions, citric acid led to the most pronounced increase in surface roughness compared to the other solutions, while heptane had the least impact (p < 0.001). Consistent with these findings, alkasite and giomer demonstrated the highest levels of bacterial adhesion, in contrast to direct and indirect composite, which showed the lowest (p = 0.008). Furthermore, citric acid resulted in the greatest microbial retention among the solutions, and heptane the least (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe restorative materials exhibited varying degrees of susceptibility to the tested solutions. Alkasite and giomer showed the most pronounced surface changes, whereas the indirect composite group was the least affected. Among the solutions, citric acid caused the greatest surface alterations, while heptane had the least impact. Surface roughness emerged as a key factor influencing microbial retention on restorative materials.
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.