SynthesisFrontiers in oral health2025
Antimicrobial potential of bioactive resin composites in caries management: a systematic review of
Synthesis in Frontiers in oral health, 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
Introduction: Secondary caries is the leading cause of failure in resin composite restorations due to biofilm accumulation. Bioactive resin composites (BRCs) release ions that promote remineralization and inhibit bacterial growth. This review compares microbial adhesion and antimicrobial effectiveness between BRCs and conventional resin composites. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in databases PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library to identify Results: A total of 272 potentially relevant articles were identified. Following PRISMA guidelines, eight articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies focused on five commercially available BRCs: Activa Bioactive Restorative (ACT), Beautifil II (BE), Cention N (CN), Equia Forte (EF), and SDR Flow Plus. Most studies assessed the adhesion of Conclusion: Bacterial adhesion to dental restorative materials is influenced by surface roughness, hydrophilicity, chemical composition, and ion release. This review suggests that BRCs and conventional resin composites exhibit similar surface characteristics, resulting in comparable bacterial adhesion. However, BRCs show greater efficacy in reducing bacterial viability, probably due to ion release, which modulates the local microenvironment and microbial dynamics. Further research is needed to explore the broader impact of ion release on the oral microbiome and its potential role in dysbiosis and disease progression. Systematic Review Registration: OSF Registries, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HRKFV.
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.