ArticleJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2026
Characterization, antifungal potential, cytocompatibility, and regenerative potential of mucoadhesive gel containing antifungal-β-cyclodextrin inclusion complexes.
Article in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to characterize a mucoadhesive gel containing nystatin (NYS) or chlorhexidine (CHX), complexed or not with β-cyclodextrin (βCD), and evaluate its rheological and mucoadhesive properties, antifungal efficacy, cytocompatibility, and collagen synthesis potential. MATERIALS AND
methodsMucoadhesive formulations were produced using chitosan and hydroxyethylcellulose, incorporating NYS or CHX at 32 mg/g, or complexed with βCD (NYS:βCD, equivalent to 16.1 mg/g of NYS, and CHX:βCD, equivalent to 4.8 mg/g of CHX), and compared to a pure gel (GEL) and a commercially available 2% miconazole gel (DK). The formulations were evaluated for their rheological and mucoadhesive properties; antifungal activity against Candida albicans by halo inhibition, XTT metabolic assay, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC); cytocompatibility in an organotypic oral mucosa model by LIVE/DEAD and Alamar Blue metabolic assay; and collagen synthesis potential by fluorometric quantification. All microbiological and cytocompatibility tests were performed using mucoadhesive leachates. Statistical analysis was performed (α = 0.05).
resultsElastic behavior was predominant in the formulations, and greater mucoadhesiveness was observed in the complexed groups (p < 0.05). Limited antifungal activity was found in the GEL and DK groups, while the NYS, NYS:βCD, CHX, and CHX:βCD formulations exhibited significantly superior antifungal efficacy (p < 0.05). While formulations containing CHX significantly reduced cellular metabolic activity, those containing NYS demonstrated better cytocompatibility and increased collagen production.
conclusionThe mucoadhesive gel containing NYS:βCD optimized both antifungal activity without compromising its rheological, mucoadhesive properties, and cytocompatibility at lower therapeutic doses compared to noncomplexed NYS. These findings suggest significant advantages for the treatment of oral candidiasis.
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.