ArticleBMC oral health2025
Impact of polishing methods on surface roughness and S. mutans adhesion in composite resins: an in vitro study.
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 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.
- Multidimensional Characterization of Surface Properties and Microbial Biofilm Formation in Commercial Flowable Resin-Based Dental Composites.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Effect of modeling liquids on surface roughness, gloss, and color stability of a nanohybrid resin composite: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the surface roughness and Streptococcus mutans adhesion on two different composite resin materials following the application of various polishing systems.
methodsEighty disk-shaped specimens (8 mm diameter, 2 mm thickness) were fabricated using nanohybrid (Charisma Topaz) and nanofilled (Tokuyama Estelite Asteria) composite resins (n = 40 each). Each material group was further divided into four groups (n = 10) according to the polishing system used: Mylar strip (control), Sof-Lex™, Clearfil™ Twist Dia, and Opti1Step™. After measuring the surface roughness, the sterilized samples were divided into two subgroups as, "artificial saliva-treated samples" and "non-treated samples." For each subgroup, solutions containing S. mutans were added, and the samples were incubated at 35-37 °C for 24 h. Determination of adhered bacteria on surfaces depended upon colony counts obtained after incubation, which was presented as CFU/mL. Statistical analyses included two-way ANOVA for surface roughness and three-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test for bacterial adhesion.
resultsSR values ranged from 0.07 ± 0.01 μm to 0.09 ± 0.03 μm across all groups, remaining well below the clinical threshold of 0.2 μm, highlighting that the minor surface variations observed are unlikely to have clinical significance regarding plaque retention. (p > 0.05). S. mutans adhesion values ranged between 2.83 ± 0.25 log CFU/mL and 3.57 ± 0.32 log CFU/mL. No statistically significant differences were found between polishing methods or saliva conditions (p > 0.05). The three-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant main effect of composite resin material on S. mutans adhesion (F = 29.895, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.322), indicating that bacterial colonization varied according to the resin material used.
conclusionWhile different polishing systems did not significantly affect surface roughness or bacterial adhesion, the composite resin type appears to play a crucial role in S. mutans colonization.
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.