ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2025
Antibacterial effects of bioactive restorative dental materials on Streptococcus mutans: An in vitro study using the direct contact test.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 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.
- The Effects of Bioactive Glass-Containing Toothpastes onDentistry journal · 2026Article
- In vitro assessment of cytotoxic, genotoxic, and antimicrobial properties of pediatric restorative dental materials.BMC oral health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the antibacterial activity of various restorative dental materials against Streptococcus mutans, a major cariogenic pathogen. The materials tested included a resin composite (Estelite Sigma Quick), conventional glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji II LC), a bioactive resin-based material (Activa BioACTIVE Restorative), and a calcium silicate-based material (Biodentine). Antibacterial activity was assessed using the direct contact test (DCT). Each material was tested against S. mutans at 3, 6, 16, and 24-h intervals. Colony-forming units (CFU) were quantified following serial dilution and culture on BHI agar. Statistical comparisons were conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis test. All materials except Estelite demonstrated significant antibacterial effects. Biodentine exhibited the greatest inhibition (P ≤ 0.001), followed by Fuji IX (P ≤ 0.001), and Fuji II LC (P ≤ 0.01). Activa BioACTIVE showed significant bacterial reduction at 16 and 24 h (P ≤ 0.05). Estelite showed no significant antibacterial effect (P > 0.05). Biodentine displayed sustained and pronounced antibacterial effects, suggesting its suitability for patients at high risk of caries. Fuji IX and Fuji II LC also exhibited antibacterial properties, though to a lesser extent. The findings support the use of bioactive restorative materials in managing bacterial presence and enhancing restoration longevity. The superior antibacterial performance of Biodentine highlights its potential role in preventing secondary caries, particularly in high-risk populations. Clinicians are encouraged to consider bioactive materials as part of comprehensive caries management strategies.
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.