MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983743194 · doi:10.1186/s12903-019-0933-z

Antimicrobial activity and pH measurement of calcium silicate cements versus new bioactive resin composite restorative material

2019· article· en· W2983743194 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Oral Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Bureau, Changsha
KeywordsMedicineAntimicrobialDentistryCalcium silicateOral and maxillofacial surgeryComposite numberCalciumDental cementComposite materialNuclear chemistryMaterials scienceChemistryOrganic chemistryAdhesiveInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this in vitro study is to compare the antimicrobial effect and pH of two calcium silicate cements Mineral trioxide aggregate high plasticity (Angelus PR, Brazil) and iRoot BP Plus (BioCeramix Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada) and new bioactive restorative resin composite restorative material (ACTIVA, MA, Pulpdent, USA) against aerobic bacteria, strictly anaerobic bacteria and a yeast by using an agar diffusion test. METHODS: The materials were tested immediately after manipulation and were applied to the agar plates. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) 5.25% was used as a positive control group. The dry filter paper acted as a negative control group for this study. The size of the inhibition zone for each material was measured after 12, 24 and 48 h. At the time of pH measurement; materials were prepared, crushed then dispersed in distilled water. RESULTS: The one-way Anova test revealed that iRoot BP Plus significantly showed superior antimicrobial efficacy compared to MTA-HP against the following species; Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Peptostreptococcus anaerobius and Candida albicans (P < 0.05). All of the tested materials did not show any antimicrobial effect against Porphyromonas gingivalis and Actinomyces israelii. The new bioactive resin composite material (ACTIVA) showed the least antimicrobial activity against the previously mentioned microorganisms except E. faecalis. NaOCl significantly showed the highest antimicrobial activity among the test group (P < 0.05). iRoot BP Plus was more alkaline (pH 12.1 ± 0.14/ 11.9 ± 0.25) in comparison to MTA-HP (pH 11.6 ± 0.16/ 11.2 ± 0.10) while ACTIVA was slightly acidic (pH 5.4 ± 0.09/ 6.5 ± 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: According to the findings of this study, it was concluded that calcium silicate- based cements showed a potential antimicrobial activity mainly due to its high alkalinity. The new bioactive resin composite restorative material exhibits less antimicrobial activity due to its resinous ingredients and slightly acidic nature. Antimicrobial effect of calcium silicate cements against strictly anaerobic bacterial species is still questionable.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it