Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41318681›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Synthetic hydroxyapatite: a perfect substitute for dental enamel in biofilm formation studies.

Johanna Dudek, Thomas Faidt, Claudia Fecher-Trost, Sudharshini Thangamurugan, Pardis Bayenat, Simone Trautmann, Jens Neurohr, Anne Holtsch, Frank Müller, Markus R Meyer and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Johanna DudekSaarland University, Clinic of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Homburg/Saar, Germany. johanna.dudek@uks.eu.
Thomas FaidtExperimental Physics and Center for Biophysics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Claudia Fecher-TrostDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Center for Molecular Signaling (PZMS), Saarland University, Homburg, Saar, Germany.
Sudharshini ThangamuruganCenter for Bioinformatics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Pardis BayenatExperimental Physics and Center for Biophysics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Simone TrautmannSaarland University, Clinic of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
Jens NeurohrExperimental Physics and Center for Biophysics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Anne HoltschExperimental Physics and Center for Biophysics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Frank MüllerExperimental Physics and Center for Biophysics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Markus R MeyerDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Center for Molecular Signaling (PZMS), Saarland University, Homburg, Saar, Germany.
Volkhard HelmsCenter for Bioinformatics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Karin JacobsExperimental Physics and Center for Biophysics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Matthias HannigSaarland University, Clinic of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Homburg/Saar, Germany. matthias.hannig@uks.eu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BiofilmsDental EnamelDurapatiteHumansSalivaDurapatite

Identifiers

PMID41318681
PMCPMC12690089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.