Effect of titanium dioxide nanotubes incorporated into conventional glass ionomer cement on L. acidophilus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present in vitro study evaluated the effect of titanium dioxide nanotubes (nTiO2) incorporated into glass ionomer cement (GIC) on the growth and viability of Lactobacillus acidophilus (L. acidophilus). GIC (Ketac Molar EasyMix® = KM) was added to concentrations of 0%, 3%, 5%, 7% by weight of nTiO2 (20 nm in size). L. acidophilus strains (1x108 CFU/mL) were cultivated on GIC discs with or without the addition of nTiO2 for 1, 3 and 7 days, and the following parameters were evaluated: inhibition zone (mm) (n = 6); cell viability (Live/Dead) (n = 6); cell morphology (SEM) (15 KV, 2000X, n = 3). The data were submitted to ANOVA and the Tukey and Dunnett tests (α = 0.05). Regarding the agar diffusion test, there was no difference between GIC and the groups containing nTiO2 (p > 0.05). As for bacterial viability, the percentage of viable bacteria was lower for GIC+7% nTiO2 (p ≤ 0.05). There was no difference in the percentage of non-viable bacteria (p > 0.05). In addition, the morphology of L. acidophilus did not change in the presence of nTiO2. It can be concluded that the incorporation of titanium dioxide nanotubes into GIC, particularly at 5%, reduced L. acidophilus viability, and might hence interfere negatively with the initial colonization process of the bacterial biofilm.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".