Antimicrobial activity and pH measurement of calcium silicate cements versus new bioactive resin composite restorative material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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".