Development of a Cavity Disinfectant Containing Antibacterial Monomer MDPB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental cavity disinfectant (ACC) that is intended to be used for various direct and indirect restorations was prepared by adding an antibacterial monomer 12-methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinum bromide (MDPB) at 5% into 80% ethanol. The antibacterial effectiveness of ACC and its influences on the bonding abilities of resin cements were investigated. To examine the antibacterial activity of unpolymerized MDPB, the minimum inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations (MIC and MBC) were determined for Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus casei, Actinomyces naeslundii, Parvimonas micra, Enterococcus faecalis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Porphyromonas gingivalis Antibacterial activities of ACC and the commercial cavity disinfectant containing 2% chlorhexidine and ethanol (CPS) were evaluated by agar disk diffusion tests through 7 bacterial species and by MIC and MBC measurement for S. mutans The effects of ACC and CPS to kill bacteria in dentinal tubules were compared with an S. mutans-infected dentin model. Shear bond strength tests were used to examine the influences of ACC on the dentin-bonding abilities of a self-adhesive resin cement and a dual-cure resin cement used with a primer. Unpolymerized MDPB showed strong antibacterial activity against 7 oral bacteria. ACC produced inhibition zones against all bacterial species similar to CPS. For ACC and CPS, the MIC value for S. mutans was identical, and the MBC was similar with only a 1-step dilution difference (1:2). Treatment of infected dentin with ACC resulted in significantly greater bactericidal effects than CPS (P < 0.05, analysis of variance and Tukey's honest significant difference test). ACC showed no negative influences on the bonding abilities to dentin for both resin cements, while CPS reduced the bond strength of the self-adhesive resin cement (P < 0.05). This study clarified that the experimental cavity disinfectant containing 5% MDPB is more effective in vitro than the commercially available chlorhexidine solution to eradicate bacteria in dentin, without causing any adverse influences on the bonding abilities of resinous luting cements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".