ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial properties and surface roughness of four maxillofacial prosthetic materials.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objectives: The adherence of microorganisms to the surfaces of maxillofacial prosthetic materials can cause surrounding tissue infections leading to discomfort, irritation and infection. It is therefore beneficial if maxillofacial prosthetic materials possess antimicrobial effects or resist microbial adherence. The purpose of this study was to compare the antimicrobial effect, surface roughness and microbial adherence of a locally produced modified polymethyl methacrylate maxillofacial prosthetic material with a commercially produced polymethyl methacrylate and two silicone elastomers against three microorganisms. Methods: Four study groups were formed, each with 10 samples (n = 10): modified polymethyl methacrylate (m-PMMA), commercially produced polymethyl methacrylate (c-PMMA), silicone A-2000 (A-2000), and silicone A-2186 (A-2186). The microorganisms tested against the four prosthetic materials were Results: None of the tested materials showed antimicrobial activity against the evaluated microbial strains. Microbial adherence was significantly higher on silicone elastomers, with greater colony-forming units of both Conclusions: The fillers in m-PMMA may inhibit the release of antimicrobial agents. The locally produced m-PMMA demonstrated less microbial adherence in comparison to other tested materials. Clinical implications: The locally produced m-PMMA was associated with less microbial adherence in comparison to other tested materials and has potential to reduce the risk of infection.
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.