ArticleBMC oral health2025
Intraoral applicability of plasma-activated water: antibacterial activity, cytotoxicity, and effects on tooth structure.
Article in BMC 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study investigated the intraoral applicability of plasma-activated water (PAW) by evaluating its antibacterial efficacy, cytotoxicity, and effects on tooth structure.
methodsPAW was generated using a microwave air plasma system and compared with 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) and distilled water (DW). Antibacterial activity was tested against major oral pathogens (Streptococcus mutans, Enterococcus faecalis, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Fusobacterium nucleatum) and beneficial bacteria (Streptococcus salivarius and Lactobacillus acidophilus) at different pH levels. Cytocompatibility was evaluated in normal oral cells, human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) and immortalized oral keratinocytes (HOK-16B), using the Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), reactive oxygen species (ROS), and mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) assays. Extracted human teeth were immersed in PAW, CHX, or DW under cyclic (1- and 2-week) and continuous (1- or 4-week) conditions to assess color, surface morphology, and microhardness. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA or nonparametric tests (Mann–Whitney U or Kruskal–Wallis), with significance set at P < 0.05.
resultsAt pH 3, PAW significantly reduced the viability of S. mutans and E. faecalis (P < 0.01) while largely preserving the beneficial species. PAW showed lower cytotoxicity than CHX in both HGFs and HOK-16B, with cell viability above 70% and minimal ROS or LDH elevation. Cyclic exposures to PAW gradually increased tooth brightness (ΔL* = 1.82 ± 1.02; ΔE00 = 1.21 ± 0.68) after 1 week, whereas CHX caused marked darkening after 2 weeks (ΔL* = − 2.85 ± 0.75; ΔE00 = 2.07 ± 0.44). After cyclic exposure for 1 week, microscopic analyses revealed increased surface roughness, enamel prism erosion, and dentinal tubular exposure, which intensified over time. After 4 weeks of continuous immersion, energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy showed elevated calcium signals on the enamel surfaces.
conclusionPAW exhibited species-selective antibacterial activity and lower cytotoxicity than CHX, while preserving the viability of beneficial oral bacteria. When applied to teeth, PAW induced noticeable brightening but also showed erosive potential with reduced surface hardness, highlighting the need for controlled exposure to ensure safe clinical use.
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.