ArticleBMC oral health2025
Experimental glass ionomer cement modified by the incorporation of nanoselenuim: antibacterial activity, cytocompatibility and compressive strength.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of restorations with antibacterial activity has become mandatory to control secondary caries, especially in atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). Therefore, this study was conducted to enhance the antibacterial activity of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) by adding nanoselenium (NSe) and to assess the impact on its cytocompatibility and compressive strength.
methodsNSe was prepared and characterized, and its minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) against Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) was determined via the broth microdilution technique. Based on the MIC, grouping was performed. Group I included unmodified GIC samples mixed with water, and groups II–IV included GIC samples mixed with three different concentrations (75, 112.5, and 150 ppm, respectively) of the NSe suspension. Antibacterial activity against S. mutans was assessed via an agar disc diffusion test over four time intervals (24, 48, 72 h, and 7 days). The cytocompatibility of 100% and 10% concentrations of the sample extract was evaluated via a sulforhodamine B (SRB) assay against oral epithelial cells. Additionally, compressive strength testing was performed according to ISO 9917-1 using a universal testing machine.
resultsRegarding antibacterial activity, group IV presented significantly higher values than the other groups, followed by group III, at all time intervals. For cytocompatibility, group II had higher values of cell viability at both concentrations. For all groups, the 10% concentration had significantly higher values of cell viability than the 100% concentration. Moreover, none of the groups showed a statistically significant difference in compressive strength.
conclusionsThe addition of NSe at concentrations up to 150 ppm resulted in extended antibacterial activity against S. mutans for up to 7 days without affecting its compressive strength. Furthermore, the addition of NSe at a low concentration, such as 75 ppm, increased the viability of oral epithelial cells.
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.