ArticleScientific reports2025
Antibacterial and biocompatibility properties of bioactive glass and double antibiotic-loaded hydrogels in regenerative endodontic treatment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physicochemical characterization of a drug-loaded nanosponge for endodontic regeneration.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Evaluating Pharmacokinetics and Toxicity of Potential Therapeutics Against Enterococcus faecalis in Endodontic Pathologies.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Effect of Chitosan and bioactive glass nanomaterials as intracanal medicaments on TGF-β1 release from intraradicular dentin.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the antibacterial and biocompatibility effects of Gelatin Methacrylate Hydrogel (GelMA) loaded with a double antibiotic paste (DAP) and bioactive glass (BG). The cellular impact of 1 mg/mL (1DAP) and 5 mg/mL (5DAP) DAP, as well as 1% BG (1BG) and 10% BG (10BG) within the hydrogel on dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs), was assessed using ATP cell viability and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) assays over 21 days. Antibacterial efficacy against E. faecalis was measured with and without dentin disks after 24-hour incubation, followed by colony-forming unit (CFU) counting. The statistical analysis was performed using one- and two-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results indicated that 5DAP and 10BG significantly reduced the vitality of DPSCs compared to 1DAP, 1BG, GelMA alone, and the control group (p < 0.001). Conversely, 1DAP and 1BG demonstrated the highest cell viability, with 1BG exhibiting superior ALP activity (p < 0.001). In the absence of dentin disks, 10BG and 5DAP displayed the greatest antibacterial effects (p < 0.001). However, the presence of dentin significantly diminished the antibacterial efficacy of BG, with 5DAP showing the strongest effect on infected dentin disks (p = 0.008). GelMA with 1% BG enhanced cellular functions. Dentin significantly reduced the antibacterial efficacy of BG, regardless of concentration. DAP at 5 mg/mL provided the highest antibacterial activity on infected dentin disks. However, none of the hydrogels completely eliminated bacteria from the dentin disks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.