ArticleScientific reports2025
Synthetic hydroxyapatite: a perfect substitute for dental enamel in biofilm formation studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In contact with saliva, tooth enamel is covered by biomolecules forming an initial biofilm. Microorganisms attach to the initial biofilm and form the bacterial biofilm, which can provoke diseases. Therefore, dental biofilms are the focus of preventive research. Enamel consists mainly of hydroxyapatite (HAP). Yet, the composition of dental apatite differs between individuals and influences enamel properties. Standardized surfaces might therefore be useful for biofilm research. Synthetic enamel-like HAP pellets perfectly meet the criteria for such well-defined samples. However, systematic investigations of synthetic HAP on oral biofilm formation have never been performed, especially not in comparison to enamel. Therefore, we systematically compared the in situ biofilm formation on synthetic HAP and enamel to investigate the suitability of HAP as a substitute for natural enamel in biofilm formation studies. We observed no differences in formation kinetics, microstructure and subject-specificity of the initial biofilm on both materials. Furthermore, at the proteome level the development of the biofilm on HAP follows the formation patterns observed for enamel. Formation kinetics and morphology of the bacterial biofilm were also subject-dependent and not distinguishable between the two materials. However, the bacterial viability on HAP was higher than on enamel. For bacterial biofilm viability studies, synthetic HAP may therefore even be the preferred substrate as it is more beneficial for identifying antimicrobial agents. In summary, the results prove synthetic HAP as perfect substrate for dental biofilm studies.
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.