ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Influence of S-PRG-based restorative and adhesive systems on biofilm formation and enamel demineralization in a simulated oral environment.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of bioactive restorative materials on biofilm formation and cariogenic processes using an in vitro dynamic cariogenic biofilm model simulated by a Multifunctional Oral Cavity Simulator. The experimental design included composite resins and adhesive systems containing S-PRG particles (Beautifil and FL-Bond II – Shofu), compared against a conventional composite (Filtek Z350XT – 3 M ESPE) and a conventional adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond – Kuraray).
methodsSamples were exposed to a controlled cariogenic environment and analyzed for colony-forming unit (CFU) counting, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), microhardness, and chemical modifications by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test was performed (α = 0.05).
resultsCFU counting and SEM analysis revealed no significant differences in biofilm volume or microbial counts among groups (P > 0.05), indicating no reduction with bioactive materials. FTIR analysis showed a marked reduction in phosphate and carbonate absorption peaks compared to sound enamel, indicating a similar demineralization pattern regardless of material. Microhardness analysis revealed no significant differences among materials (P > 0.05).
conclusionOur findings did not reveal superior protection of bioactive materials containing S-PRG particles against cariogenic challenges. In this context, more robust clinical evidence is still needed to confirm the effectiveness of bioactive materials in enhancing restoration longevity and caries control. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Under dynamic cariogenic conditions, S-PRG-based materials performed similarly to conventional restoratives materials. These findings indicate that the purported bioactivity may not result in measurable clinical benefits.
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.