ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of Streptococcus mutans adhesion to polished and glazed surfaces of three CAD/CAM ceramics: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesBacterial adhesion to dental restorations plays a critical role in the development of biofilms, contributing to periodontal disease and implant failure. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of glazing and polishing on the adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to three types of CAD/CAM ceramics: lithium disilicate, zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate, and monolithic zirconia. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this experimental in-vitro study, 81 ceramic specimens (n = 81) from three types-zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (VITA Suprinity), lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD), and monolithic zirconia (InCoris ZI)-were prepared by polishing, glazing, and left untreated as controls. The bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans was assessed using the crystal violet biofilm assay. Following a 48-hour incubation, optical density (OD) values were measured to quantify bacterial adhesion. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used for additional biofilm visualization. The data were analyzed using SPSS software with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, one-way and two-way ANOVA, and Tukey test with a significance level of 0.05.
resultsPolished InCoris ZI demonstrated the lowest bacterial adhesion (0.14). Two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between ceramic type and preparation method (p = 0.003), although neither factor alone showed a significant effect. InCoris ZI exhibited significantly higher bacterial adhesion with glazing compared to polishing (p = 0.005), while no significant differences were observed for Suprinity or IPS e.max across preparation methods. Bacterial adhesion to InCoris ZI among glazed samples was significantly higher than Suprinity (p = 0.01) and IPS e.max (p = 0.009).
conclusionPreparation methods generally did not significantly influence bacterial adhesion, except for InCoris ZI, where polishing resulted in substantially lower adhesion compared to glazing. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The study highlights that polishing, particularly for InCoris ZI ceramics, effectively minimizes bacterial adhesion, offering a practical alternative to glazing for in-mouth restoration adjustments. By eliminating the need for laboratory processing, polishing can streamline clinical workflows and reduce chairside time, while still maintaining favorable outcomes. These findings emphasize the importance of selecting appropriate surface treatments to enhance the longevity and hygiene of ceramic restorations.
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.