ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2025
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2025. 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
Background and Aim: Research confirming the ability of cariogenic bacteria Materials and Methodology: Thirty six samples (12 samples each) of Group I (Tetric N Ceram), Group II (Novel composite, Sri Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology [SCTIMST]), and Group III (Tetric N Ceram incorporated with 5 wt% ZnO-NPs) were prepared for the study. Antibacterial efficacy was measured using direct contact test, antibiofilm effect was tested on 7-day-old biofilm using live-dead staining and viewed under confocal Raman microscope, and resistance to biodegradation was measured using high performance liquid chromatography, all tested against Results: Intergroup evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy, antibiofilm effect, and resistance to biodegradation showed that Group II and Group III showed significantly favorable results as compared to Group I, tested using analysis of variance followed by post hoc analysis. Conclusion: The novel composite (SCTIMST) and composite incorporated with 5 wt% ZnO-NPs have better antibacterial property, antibiofilm effect, and resistance to biodegradation as compared to the unmodified composite, against
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.