ArticleInternational dental journal2026
The Effect of Toothpaste Suspensions on the Formation of Oral Biofilms In Situ.
Article in International dental journal, 2026. 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.
- Eggshell-derived hydroxyapatite as a bioactive filler for toothpaste: rheology and enamel remineralization performance.Odontology · 2026Article
- Navigating fluoride hesitancy: mapping the evidence base for fluoride-free toothpaste alternatives.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
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
objectivesToothpastes are essential for oral hygiene and plaque control, yet limited data exist on their ability to inhibit biofilm formation. This study evaluated the biofilm-inhibiting effects of four toothpastes using an in situ biofilm model.
designPaste I contained fluoride, chlorhexidine, and aluminum lactate. Paste II added strontium acetate and potassium chloride to Paste I. Paste III included hydroxyapatite, and Paste IV contained papain and bromelain. Controls included water, a base paste, and 0.2% chlorhexidine. Six volunteers wore acrylic splints with bovine enamel slabs and rinsed with toothpaste suspensions at intervals over 48 hours. Biofilm coverage and bacterial viability were assessed via fluorescence microscopy using live/dead staining.
resultsResults showed reduced biofilm coverage with Paste I (31%*), Paste II (29%*), Paste IV (30%*), and Paste III (40%) compared to water (72%) and base paste (47%). Chlorhexidine showed the lowest coverage (10%). Viability of bacteria (green fluorescence) was lowest with Paste III (9%*), followed by Paste I (31%*), Paste II (28%*), and Paste IV and chlorhexidine (each 39%). Water and base paste showed higher viability (54% and 51%, respectively). Statistically significant differences were found compared to water (Mann-Whitney U-test, *P < .05).
conclusionsToothpastes with active ingredients significantly reduced biofilm formation and/or viability. Paste III, containing hydroxyapatite, was particularly effective in reducing bacterial viability. Further research is needed to explore alternatives to chlorhexidine as a preservative.
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.