ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Synergistic potential of antibiotics against an
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite their widespread success, dental implants remain vulnerable to biofilm-associated infections such as peri-implantitis. Local antibiotic (AB) application may enhance treatment outcomes; however, its use remains controversial due to limited evidence and the lack of standardized recommendations regarding active agents and effective concentrations. This study aimed to identify potent antibiotic combinations and concentrations against a peri-implantitis-associated multispecies biofilm (MB) Method: An oral multispecies biofilm model (MSBM) was cultivated in the presence of the antibiotics amoxicillin (Amox), doxycycline (Doxy), minocycline (Mino), and metronidazole (Metro), both as single agents and in combination with Metro at varying concentrations. Synergistic effects were assessed by turbidity measurement, Bactiter Glo™ assay and Resazurin assay. The most effective concentrations were further examined using confocal laser scanning microscopy. Additionally, they were tested on three potential implant materials: titanium grade 4, titanium grade 5, and an experimental ultrafine-grained niobium alloy and on a mature biofilm. Results: Amox, Doxy and Mino demonstrated strong efficacy against the MB, whereas Metro alone showed little to no effect. Synergistic interactions were mainly observed when comparing to Metro's limited activity. A tendency toward enhanced efficacy of Amox and Doxy in combination with Metro was noted, although not statistically significant. The antibacterial performance of all agents was independent of the implant material and reduced when applied on mature biofilm. Conclusion: These findings highlight the potential of locally applied Amox and Doxy, alone or in combination with Metro, as a targeted approach for peri-implantitis management and indicate that their effectiveness is largely independent of implant materials. Further studies using
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.